CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.

360 ITR 44High Court2014#2262 most cited

What is CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is 'erroneous' under Section 263 only if it is contrary to law or based on a mistaken application of legal principles. Revision orders are unsustainable if they are not founded on such an error in the original assessment.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. · 360 ITR 44 · Section 263 · revision order quashed · scope of erroneous · deficient revision order · unsustainable revision order · Commissioner's power of revision · CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd.

Also reported as

39 Taxmann.com 135

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 56(2)(viii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)enhanced compensationdoctrine of mergersection 197

Judgments citing CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. [(2019) 305 ITR 486 (Bom)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 11 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.)], CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [(2013) 213 Taxman 184 (Del.)], Kamal Kumar Gupta vs. CIT [(2011) 142 TTJ 9 (Jaipur Trib.)], Anand Poddar vs. ACIT [(2013) 33 taxmann.com 367 (Guwahati Trib.)], DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. [(2014) 151 ITD 563 (Del. Trib)], Small Wonder Industries vs. CIT (ITA No. 2464/M/13), Metacaps Engineering &…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…of revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 b) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) c) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) d) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 360 ITR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier conten…

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…of revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 b) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) c) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) d) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 360 ITR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier conten…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…of revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 b) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) c) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) d) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 360 ITR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier conten…

M/S. Religare Wealth Management Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Religare Wealth Vs. Dcit, Management Ltd., Circle-21(1), C.R. Building, D3, P3B, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aadcr5677C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…the hands of the Revenue. The Scheme is analogous to the Employee stock appreciation rights scheme 2007 and is covered in the favour of the assesse by the ruling of this Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax vs. New Delhi Television Limited’, 2017 398 ITR 452 which had in turn relied on a previous judgment of Madras High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-Ill, Chennai vs. M/s PVP Ventures Limited, T. Nagar, Chennai, TC(A)No.l023 of 2005. Consequently, no question of law arises on this aspect. The next question urged is with respect to the disallowance under Section 14-A of the Income Ta…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order 31 ITA.No.3216/Del./2017 Sri Bal…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…enquiry so as to trigger the jurisdiction under section 263. 38. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Delhi), Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal CIT in ITA No. 3316/Del/2015, CGG Marine Resources vs. DCIT (2012) 51 SOT 141 (Delhi). No doubt, Section 263 of the Act confers power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to examine an assessment order so as to ascertain whether it is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests o…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…enquiry so as to trigger the jurisdiction under section 263. 38. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Delhi), Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal CIT in ITA No. 3316/Del/2015, CGG Marine Resources vs. DCIT (2012) 51 SOT 141 (Delhi). No doubt, Section 263 of the Act confers power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to examine an assessment order so as to ascertain whether it is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests o…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…enquiry so as to trigger the jurisdiction under section 263. 38. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Delhi), Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal CIT in ITA No. 3316/Del/2015, CGG Marine Resources vs. DCIT (2012) 51 SOT 141 (Delhi). No doubt, Section 263 of the Act confers power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to examine an assessment order so as to ascertain whether it is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests o…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…to record the finding that assessment order was erroneous. He should not have set aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the said inquiry. The present case may be the case of inadequate inquiry but not a case of lack of inquiry. (2013) 39 Taxmann.com 135 (Del) CIT Delhi-V vs New Delhi Television Ltd. In this case, assessee, producer of television news and program was also engaged in the business of limited transfer / export of news items and television programmes owned by it. It claimed deduction u/s 80HH. Assessing Officer delved deep into question of deduction, conducted investigation an…

Adishwar K. Jain, Thane vs. Comm of Income Tax 26, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3389/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Shri V. Justin
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80G

…nation of the record of proceedings available at the time of initiation. On this aspect, the learned representative had relied on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs New Delhi 14 Adishwar K. Jain Television Ltd., 360 ITR 44 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). Notably, in the instant case, the error of ‘lack of necessary inquiry’ made out by the Commissioner is based on the cash summary/statements prepared by him after procuring the copies of the bank statem…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…92 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. In further alternative submission it was argued that the order of assessment cannot be held erroneous only because no elaborate discussion was made by AO while passing assessment order. Reliance is made on case law of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016) 76 taxmann.com 226(SC)]. The ld. AR of the assessee finally submits that the ord…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…2 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT was precluded from revising the assessment order on the issues which were subject matter of appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the ld. DR for the Reve…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…2 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT was precluded from revising the assessment order on the issues which were subject matter of appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the ld. DR for the Reve…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter; reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to be incurred not for the purpose of business, but incurred for the purpose of earning tax free income, to that extent se…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter. Reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to be incurred not for the purpose of business, but incurred for the purpose of earning tax free income, to that extent se…