How many judgments cite CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.?

366 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. (354 ITR 536), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 139, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536High Court2013#204 most cited

What is CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

366

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(1) · fresh tangible material · reason to believe · escapement of income · mere change of opinion · live link · reopening of assessment

Also reported as

29 Taxmann.com 392

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 139 Section 143(1)Section 133A Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible material kelvinator beyond four years material facts necessary for assessment first proviso to section 147 mere change of opinion live link change of opinion tangible material short term capital gains reason to believe escapement of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6702/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co. Vs Ward – 18 (1) Chartered Accountants, 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaacn0805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68

…2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007]210 CTR 30 (SC) 5. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT 6. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court [2014] 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) 7. Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bombay High court [2013] 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bomba) /[2013] 215 Taxman 109 (Bombay) (MAG.) 8. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communications (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi). 9. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT Supreme Court 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT 10. -…

Damyanti Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1721/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…IT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); iii) Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT; iv) Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bombay); v) Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del); vi) Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj); vii) Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 82 (Guj); viii) Murlibhai Fatandas Sawiani vs. ITO 2016-TIOL-370-HC-AHM-IT; ix) Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 45 (Raj); x) Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 271 (P&H); xi) Abhis…

Gopal Chand Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…Officer to disturb the finality of the intimation under section 143(1) at his whims and caprice; he must have reason to believe within the meaning of the section.‟ 15.…. 16….. 17. A decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orient Craft Limited (354 ITR 536) had occasion to consider a similar question and the Division Bench, at Page 546, holds as follows; „Having regard to the judicial interpretation placed upon the expression reason to believe‟, and the continued use of that expression right from 1948 till date, we have to understand the meaning of the expression in exactly the same manner in which…

Sanjay Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153A

…was justified in initiating reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. 7. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court T20141 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/r20141 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/r20141 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) In terms of section 148, law only requires that information or material on which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be 4 communicated to assessee, without mandating disclosure of any specific document. 8. PCIT, Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court [20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r20171 392 ITR 444…

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’B’, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 25/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2005-06. cuke M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut The ACIT, Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vs. Circle-6, Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.AABCR 8312 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri PC Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reven…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ground that they do not meet the standards set in the various judicial pronouncements." 18. It may be noticed at this stage that the decision in Orient Craft Ltd has been followed by this Court in Madhukar Khosla v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 354 ITR 356. 19. There is no ground urged in the present appeal by the Revenue that the decision in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. was erroneously decided and requires reconsideration. During the course of arguments it was submitted that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, the question should be…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-I(I), Indore

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

ITA 441/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to the following cases. District Cooperative Bank Ltd V/s DCIT (All) CIT Versus Fujistu Optel Ltd (359 ITR 67) Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT v/s. Trimurti Builders (M.P.) (246 CTR 308) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR (Del) CIT v/s Orient Craft Ltd (354 ITR 536) (Del) DIT vs. Rolls Royee Industrial Power India Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi High Court) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and OTR 351 ITR 23 Delhi High Court . Rubamin Ltd. Vis. Love Kumar (253 ITR 432) (Guj.) Ashwamegh Co-operative Housing Society vis. DCIT (353 Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd ITA No…

M/S Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (5), Indore

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

ITA 503/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of Assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2144/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aaacl-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aaacl-5419R ( Cross Objector ) ( Department )

For Appellant: S/Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43(1)(a)Section 68

…ed mainly on the following judgements to buttress its arguments : 1. ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) 2. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs ITO (20 taxmann.com 797) 3. PCIT6 vs Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 300) 4. CITV vs Orient Craft Ltd ( 354 ITR 536) 5. PCIT vs. Tupperware India P. Ltd. (236 Taxman 494) At the outset, the aforesaid arguments of the assessee are rebutted as below : 1. Now, on perusal of the assessment records sent by the AO to the office of the undersigned during the course of appellate proceedings before Hon. ITAT, it is seen that DDIT(lnv), Unit2(1), Kolkata, provided…

M/S. Maa Tara Agro Industries, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 233/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Maa Tara Agro Industries……………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Vill. + P.O. Satitara Murshidabad – 742 132 [Pan : Aamfm 5316 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Murshidabad...........................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…any failure on his part to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessment and therefore reopening beyond four years was not vaild. (A.Y. 2005-06). 4.6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in [2013] 354 ITR 356 (Del.)(HC) has held as follows: “The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words “reason to believe” vis-à-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangib…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5712/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…on came to the notice of the Assessing Officer after the completion of the initial assessment on 24-12-2008 and the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28-03-2013. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (2013) (Delhi) held: "We think that the point taken on behalf of the assessee that even an assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act can be reopened under Section 147 only subject to fulfillment of the conditions precedent, which include the condition that the Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has…

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Income Tax Officer, 270, I Floor, Sairam Complex, Ward-7(2)(5), 5th Block, Koramangala, Vs. BENGALURU BENGALURU [PAN: AAFAS0815D] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.S. Balachandra, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 10-04-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 12-04-2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President : This is an appeal by the assessee against the…

ITO WD 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ample Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1628/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

…ITAs No. 1628/Mum/2017 assessment done for this year. Hence, according to AO, share premium have not been received by assessee and was not examined. This issue has been addressed by Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited [2013] 354 ITR 536 (Delhi), wherein it is held that the assessment reopened by the AO on the belief that there was an escapement of income and going through the return of income filed by the assessee after he accepted the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny assessment. Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment by observing as u…

M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd……………....……………....…………………….....Appellant 51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Aalcs 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 156Section 250

…. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd truly disclose material facts necessary for assessment and therefore reopening beyond four years was not valid. (A.Y. 2005-06). 4.6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in [2013] 354 ITR 356 (Del.)(HC) has held as follows: "The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words "reason to believe" vis-à-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangib…

Smt. Vidhya Agarwal, Agra vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Agra

The appeal is allowed

ITA 335/AGR/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 148

…pplication to the case where relevancy of the reasons recorded are challenged on the ground of non-application of mind, which the case of the assessee in the present appeal. 12. Then, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Craft Limited', 354 ITR 536 (Del) had the occasion to consider the scope of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of `Rajesh Jhaveri' (supra) on which strong reliance was placed by the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "Certain observations made in the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) are sought to be relied upon by the revenue to point out t…

B H Ramachandra, Hassan District vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Guduswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…nion that there was escapement of income. In that case, it has to be held that the 6 ITA No.154/Bang/2017. Shri B.H.Ramachandra. assessing officer has reopened the assessment only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 10. In the case of Orient Craft Ltd (354 ITR 536), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the reopening of assessment without any tangible material is not valid. In the instant case also, it was not shown that the assessing officer was having any tangible material to show that the assessee has violated the provisions of sec.194C of the Act warranting addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…1) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to following judicial decisions:- ix. Safetag international India P. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 622 (Del.), x. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) xi. Acorus Unitech Wirelss Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del.). xii. Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs Asst. CIT (1999) 832, 843-44, 844-45 (Guj.), xiii. Venus Industrial Corporation vs Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (Punj.), xiv. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltr…

Dilwara Leasing & Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee

ITA 3927/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…justified in initiating reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. 7. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court T20141 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/r20141 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/r20141 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) In terms of section 148, law only requires that information or material on which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be communicated to assessee, without mandating disclosure of any specific document. 8. PCIT, Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court [20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r20171 392 ITR…