CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.

245 CTR 397High Court2011#1960 most cited

What is CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. authority for?

The production of fresh evidence at the appellate stage before the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly governed by the conditions and procedures laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. · 245 CTR 397 · Delhi High Court · Rule 46A Income-tax Rules · additional evidence · fresh evidence · appellate stage · appeal to CIT(A) · Section 250 · evidence production · evidence admissibility

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 153ASection 69ASection 147Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 150(2)section 110section 2(7)section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 153(a)(1)section 106section 250(1)section 45(2)project completion methodsection 150(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 SC, the Apex Court held that the completion contract method adopted by the assessee for chit discount consistently over the years, is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method. In CIT v Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), it was enunciated that project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. That it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of payment of taxes. Therefore, considering the discussion above, I do not find any merit on the part of the AO to have worked out the…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 SC, the Apex Court held that the completion contract method adopted by the assessee for chit discount consistently over the years, is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method. In CIT v Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), it was enunciated that project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. That it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of payment of taxes. Therefore, considering the discussion above, I do not find any merit on the part of the AO to have worked out the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 SC, the Apex Court held that the completion contract method adopted by the assessee for chit discount consistently over the years, is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method. In CIT v Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), it was enunciated that project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. That it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of payment of taxes. Therefore, considering the discussion above, I do not find any merit on the part of the AO to have worked out the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 SC, the Apex Court held that the completion contract method adopted by the assessee for chit discount consistently over the years, is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method. In CIT v Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), it was enunciated that project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. That it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of payment of taxes. Therefore, considering the discussion above, I do not find any merit on the part of the AO to have worked out the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 SC, the Apex Court held that the completion contract method adopted by the assessee for chit discount consistently over the years, is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method. In CIT v Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), it was enunciated that project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. That it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of payment of taxes. Therefore, considering the discussion above, I do not find any merit on the part of the AO to have worked out the…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6477/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant.” 5.2 We may like to point out that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well Private Limited reported in 245 CTR 397 (Delhi), restored the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for complying the provisions of rule 46A(3) of Rules. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “24. In the present case, the CIT (A) has observed that the additional evidence should be admitted because the assessee was prevented by adducing them before the assessing…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Maxworth Infrasqwtructrure P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…f the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paras buildtech India private limited versus CIT reported in 382 ITR 630, DCIT Vs M/s Sabh infrastructure Ltd dated 07/01/2015 ( ITA No. 111/2014 and 113 /2014), CIT Vs Manish Buildwell private limited reported in 245 CTR 397 and other decisions. The assessee filed a chart of completed contract method followed consistently and recognised by the income tax department as under: A.Y. Comulative Sale(Rs.) Method of accounting Assessment Advances followed u/s. (Rs.) 2011-12 14.79 Nil Completed contract 143 (1) method 2012-13 50.03 Nil Completed contract Under method appea…

Sanjay Matai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 375/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 375/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/S Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Alkpm 9533 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 25/01/2016 For The A.Y. 2008-09 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whereas On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Ajmer Has Grossly Erred In Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46-A Submitted During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings Stating There In That Though Complete Details & Evidence Were Filed Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Which Were Not Considered Prospectively. It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested Before Your Honour That Application Under Rule 46A Of The I.T.Act,1961 Of The Appellant Deserves To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 375/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/s Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALKPM 9533 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Ch…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hermes India Retails & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 4315/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

…He submitted that the assessee has not demonstrated before the Learned CIT(A) as how it fulfilled requirement of Rule 46A of the Rules. The learned DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. reported in 245 CTR 397 and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private 4 ITA No.4315/Del./2014 Limited reported in 375 ITR 373 and submitted that after admission of the additional evidences, those evidences should have been referred to the Assessing Officer/TPO for his comments on merit. 4.1 On the contrary, the Learned Counsel of the assessee relied on the finding…

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…and in subsequent years and thereby reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents: In this regard, the Assessee wishes to place his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manish Build Well Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del) [enclosed at page no 172 to 185 of the Paper book], wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High court, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 482 and in case of CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 , has held that the project completion method is one of the recog…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhagwati Contractor, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3070/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bajpayee, CA &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

…ion to conduct proper enquiry shifts to 4 Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by AO on ground of lack of inquiry. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. reported in 245 CTR 397, has held that where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of Rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. Since, in the instant case, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition basically on the ground that no specific instance of mi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to acceptance of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules: 1. CIT vs. Manish p.nid Well (P.) Ltd [16 taxmann.com 27, 204 Taxman 106, 245 CTR 397 (Copy enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. 12 2. CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd (56 taxmann.com 286,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to acceptance of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules: 1. CIT vs. Manish p.nid Well (P.) Ltd [16 taxmann.com 27, 204 Taxman 106, 245 CTR 397 (Copy enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. 12 2. CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd (56 taxmann.com 286,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2600/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to acceptance of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules: 1. CIT vs. Manish p.nid Well (P.) Ltd [16 taxmann.com 27, 204 Taxman 106, 245 CTR 397 (Copy enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. 12 2. CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd (56 taxmann.com 286,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to acceptance of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules: 1. CIT vs. Manish p.nid Well (P.) Ltd [16 taxmann.com 27, 204 Taxman 106, 245 CTR 397 (Copy enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification, requirement of rule 46A(3) were not satisfied. 12 2. CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd (56 taxmann.com 286,…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Thebroma Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)(3) M/S. Theobroma Foods R.No. 672, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Jamuna Sagar, V. M.K. Road, 59/60, Shahid Bhagat New Marine Lines, Singh Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct0588K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Rohan Deshpande सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 765/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.10.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-344/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30

…d rely on following case laws: a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Rallis India Limited v. CIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 462(Bom.) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Manish Buildwell Private Limited reported in (2011) 245 CTR 397(Del.) c) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate in Civil Appeal No. 673 of 1963, judgment dated 30.04.1964 d) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Hede Consultancy Private Limited reported in (2002) 258 ITR 380(Bom.) I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 e) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip Aggarwal, Estate, New Delhi 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.353/Del/2009 [In Ita No.3595/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2001-02 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aggarwal, Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Estate, New Delhi Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ces issued to various parties under section 133(6) remain non-complied and, thus, additional evidence remains unverified. The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manish Buildwell Private Limited (245 CTR 397), the Ld. CIT(A) after admitting the additional evidences was required to forward those additional evidences for comments of the Assessing Officer on merit, however he has allowed the appeal, without comments on merit of the additional evidences from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR submitted that this action of the Ld. CIT(A) being in violation…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parnav Vikas India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 877/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Parnav Vikas India Circle-20(1), New Delhi Ltd., 12-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp1537C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…of the assessee even without verification of the evidence in support of such claim, much less providing the opportunity of any explanation to the Assessing Officer. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manish Buildwell Private Limited (245 CTR 397) has distinguished between the power of the Ld. CIT(A) in the capacity of a co- terminus power of the Assessing Officer and his appellate functions. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that in case of additional evidences filed, the Ld. CIT(A) should follow the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The relevant find…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5754/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C-6 Sda Commercial Circle-6(1), New Delhi Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. Mccain Foods India Pvt. Circle -6(1), New Delhi Ltd., C-6 Sda Commercial Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C-6 Sda Commercial Circle -6(1), New Delhi Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.” 6.2 Before us the Ld. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manish Buildwell Private Limited (245 CTR 397), wherever additional evidences are admitted at the first appellate stage, without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer for furnishing his comments and without any verification at his end, the requirement of Rule 46A(3) are not satisfied. Accordingly, he submitted that issue in dispute may be restored back either to the Ld. CIT(A) or to…

M/S. Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4977/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C-6 Sda Commercial Circle-6(1), New Delhi Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. Mccain Foods India Pvt. Circle -6(1), New Delhi Ltd., C-6 Sda Commercial Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C-6 Sda Commercial Circle -6(1), New Delhi Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm4861G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.” 6.2 Before us the Ld. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manish Buildwell Private Limited (245 CTR 397), wherever additional evidences are admitted at the first appellate stage, without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer for furnishing his comments and without any verification at his end, the requirement of Rule 46A(3) are not satisfied. Accordingly, he submitted that issue in dispute may be restored back either to the Ld. CIT(A) or to…