CIT v. Software Consultants

341 ITR 240High Court2012#1934 most cited

What is CIT v. Software Consultants authority for?

For exercising power under Section 263, an assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The validity of initiating reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 is a distinct matter from the scope of additions permissible after a valid reopening.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Software Consultants · 341 ITR 240 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 263 · reassessment validity · initiation of reassessment · scope of additions after reopening · revision power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 263Section 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 44afsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 147ofsection 262section 61

Judgments citing CIT v. Software Consultants

Guru Kirpa Shuttering Pvt. Ltd, Gurgoan vs. PCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4819/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…red jurisdiction for reopening u/s 147 by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had heavily relied upon the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Del.), wherein on almost on similar issue, the Hon’ble Court observed and held as under:- “One of the contentions, which has been accepted by the Tribunal is that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be regarded as erroneous even if the Assessing Officer had failed to carry out necessary verification and required enquiries in respect of th…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…me Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…me Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…A No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] (ITA no. 451/del/2017 placed at pg 60-96 ) i. Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (ITA no. 2690/Mum/2016 placed at pg 97-117) Other decisions relied upon- copies not being filed a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…me Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i…

Arihant Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5473/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Arihant Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Wz-284B, Lane-11, Lajwanti New Delhi Garden, New Delhi Pan No. Aadca6471D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133Section 142Section 148Section 263

…d. Pr. CIT does not agree with the findings of the AO, he cannot hold that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held where Assessing Officer did not make any addition on issue in respect of which reasons were recorded at the time of issuing notice under section 148, sequitur is that Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of said issue and, thus, Commissioner could not h…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. CIT(A) quashing the impugned reassessment order be upheld. - Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT (336 ITR 136) (Del HC) - CIT Vs Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) (Raj HC) - CIT Vs Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd (GA No. 1736 of 2014) (Cal HC) - CIT Vs Software Consultants (341 ITR 240) (Del HC) - Indu Arts Vs ACIT (88 taxmann.com 182) (ITAT Delhi) - ShriMotilal Jain Vs ITO (ITA No. 1986 to 1988/Kol/2016) 8. In support of the cross objections and the additional grounds of cross objections, the Ld. counsel further submitted that the reopening of assessment suffered from fundamental infirmity as the AO never obtained prior appro…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…so placed on the following judgments: i) 336 ITR 136 (Del) M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT ii) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)CIT v. M/s Jet Airways (I) Ltd. iii) 354 ITR 549 (Del) CIT v. Cheil Communication India (P) Ltd. iv) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) CIT v. Shri Ram Sing v) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants vi) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani vii) 394 ITR 733 (Mad Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DIT) 8 It was also submitted that action u/s 147 has been taken mechanically on the basis of AIR information and based on non application of mind and, therefore the proceedings are without jurisdiction. Refere…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…e tax Officer does not possess the power of review, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake." [Emphasis given] d) CIT vs. Software Consultants (2012) 341 ITR 240 (Del) 32 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 In this case, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the issue of taxability of certain FDRs, which were found in possession of a director of the company. However, the director claimed that the FDRs, in her name, actually bel…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…e tax Officer does not possess the power of review, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake." [Emphasis given] d) CIT vs. Software Consultants (2012) 341 ITR 240 (Del) 32 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 In this case, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the issue of taxability of certain FDRs, which were found in possession of a director of the company. However, the director claimed that the FDRs, in her name, actually bel…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…e tax Officer does not possess the power of review, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake." [Emphasis given] d) CIT vs. Software Consultants (2012) 341 ITR 240 (Del) 32 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 In this case, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the issue of taxability of certain FDRs, which were found in possession of a director of the company. However, the director claimed that the FDRs, in her name, actually bel…

M/S Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, 17-B, Mgf House, Delhi-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadcp4389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Pramita Tripathy, Cit Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…ssessment order on the issue raised in the reasons recorded. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT I.T.A. No. 2648/Del/2016 Assessment year 2006-07 versus Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) for the proposition that jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised qua issues which were beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the AO while passing the orders sought to be revised. It was prayed that the order passed under section 263 be quashed. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the order passed under sect…

M/S. Odyssey Share Broking Services, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147. 7. In the case of CIT vs Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Delhi), the assessment for the relevant year was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received by him regarding the investment of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the assessee in fixed deposit receipts. In the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147, the AO however did not make any addition on account of investment made by the assessee in…

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…24 Assessment year:2011-12 be the lack of inquiry in accordance with CIT if he has different opinion how to proceed with the assessment of the assessee. 19. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) in which it has held as under :- “The assessee-company did not file its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1997-98, it was noticed that the central Bureau of Investigation had conducted search in the premises in which fixed deposit receipts worth Rs.20 lakh…

Kashyap L Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Kashyap L. Shah,Vijay Raj Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Building, Ground Floor, Income Tax,19(1),322, Plot No.288, 9Th Road, Khar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, (West), Mumbai 400 052 Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Pan: Aabps 6722 L .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay C. Gosalia, Ar Respondent By Shri A. Ramachandran, Dr Date Of Hearing 16-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 09-09-2016

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

…47. This was the subject matter of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways: 331 ITR 236 (Bom). This was followed by this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT: 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and also in CIT v. Software Consultants: 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). It was also subject matter of a recent decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 578/2012 decided on 17.04.2013. Therefore, no additions in 6 absence of any addition on the issue of bad debts could have been made by the Assessing Officer.” In view of the above jurisdictional High Court dec…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S. Randeep Investment 15(2), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 202, Mohan Place, Local Shopping Complex, C- Block, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising The Following Grounds: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 45,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Ignoring The Fact That As Per The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Department, The Said Entities Are 2 Ay: 2004-05 Doing No Business Except To Provide Accommodation Entries On Commission Basis. Ii. The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Grounds Of Appeal And/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 147Section 68

…in para 20 of the order which has already been 6 AY: 2004-05 discussed in earlier paragraphs. Similarly, his reliance on other judgements viz. in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom); CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj); and Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del) also supports the case. In the instant case, AO has reopened the assessment pertaining to 3 entries totalling to Rs. 11,61,425/- which has been found to be as explained by him but he has made addition of Rs. 45 lacs on 4 other entries. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories as discussed above…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nandan Auto Tech Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3166/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Ashish Chadha, AshishFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…d.- August 11, 2014 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT-II Vs Living Media India Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 106 (Del) (v) CIT VsCheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 549 (Del) (vi) CIT vsAdhunikNiryatIspat Co. 63 DTR 212 (Del) (vii) CIT vs Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del) (viii) CIT vs Narayan Securities P Ltd (Del) ITA no. 40/2009 dt. 3-6- 2011 (ix) ACIT vsMaj Deepak Mehta 344 ITR 641 (Chatis) (x) CIT vsShri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (xi) Double Dot Finance Ltd vs CIT (Bom) ITA no. 856/2011 (xii) CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 349 ITR 482 (Bom) 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the assessment order a…

Oriental Insurance Company

The appeal is allowed

ITA/174/2013HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
For Appellant: Mr M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with MrFor Respondent: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 260A

…cated as reasons for forming the belief that income had escaped assessment and for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT: 336 ITR 136 and CIT v. Software Consultants: 341 ITR 240 in support of his contentions. 6. Mr Syali further argued that the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for taxing the profits and gains from sale of investments as the 2015:DHC:7655-DB ITA 174/2013 Page 10 of 26 issue with regard to taxability of that income had been considered by the AO in the initial asses…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Living Media India Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA/168/2013HC Delhi26 Apr 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr R.P. Mall, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 260A

…47. This was the subject matter of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways: 331 ITR 236 (Bom). This was followed by this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT: 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and also in CIT v. Software Consultants: 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). 2013:DHC:2107-DB ITA No.168/2013 Page 6 of 10 It was also subject matter of a recent decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 578/2012 decided on 17.04.2013. Therefore, no additions in absence of any addition on the issue of bad debts could have been made by the Assessing Officer. 11. A…