How many judgments cite CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 68.

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

340 ITR 66High Court2012#978 most cited

What is CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment order cannot be upheld if the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 are furnished to the assessee only after the completion of the reassessment, or are not furnished at all. The assessee has a fundamental right to be provided with these reasons to file objections.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · reasons recorded · furnishing of reasons · notice under section 148 · void ab initio · income escaping assessment · objection to reasons

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 5321 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 68 Section 69A Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessment reopening of assessment escapement of income section 151 reason to believe notice under section 148 tangible material reassessment proceedings speaking order first appeal section 148 unexplained money

Judgments citing CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Shri Sachin Jain, Rishikesh vs. ITO, Rishikesh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. Pan: Adhpj2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St January, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 For Non- Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Order Dated 9Th March, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Made Therein & On A Perusal Of The Record, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 153(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. ITO, S/o Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. PAN: ADHPJ2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue by : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st January, 2016 of the CIT(A), Dehradun, relating to Assessment Year…

Gulab L. Bodke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 10(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2828/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

…sued notice u/s. 143(2) on 28-10-2015. The assessment order was passed on 18-03-2016 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. reported as 340 ITR 66 has held that where the reasons recorded for reopening are not furnished to the assessee till the completion of assessment, the reassessment order is bad in law. The ld. AR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014…

M/S. Devansh Exports, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reasons recorded before he proceeds to assess the income, which according to him, has escaped Assessment. In fact, non furnishing of reasons would make an Assessment Order bad as held by this Court in CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53, 340 ITR 66. In fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the Assessment Order on re- opening notice bad. Therefore, on the aboveground itself, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra)…

S.T. Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 831/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री अननऱ चतुर्वेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य, एर्वं श्री वर्वकास अर्वस्थी, न्यानयक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.831/PUN/2016 ननधाारण र्वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 S.T. Electricals Pvt. Ltd., J-56, S Block, MIDC, Bhosari, Pune-411026 PAN : AAGCS6214D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 10, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He…

Globsyn Technologies Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.179/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Vs. I.T.O, Ward-2(3), Kolkata Xi-11 & 12, Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacg 3401 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ns have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the five assessment years……………. 3. CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) Bombay HC It was held that failure to furnish the recorded reasons for issue of reopening notices to the assessee before completion of the assessment proceedings would make the reassessment order passed in pursuance of such a notice bad in law.” 4. Applying the propositions laid down in this case laws and considering the facts of the case, we hol…

Income Tax Officer vs. Jayprakash Prabhakaran Nair, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2729/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi

Section 143(3)

…ments made by the A.O. are invalid and void ab-initio. The above contention of the appellant is supported by various decisions relied on by the appellant. It has been laid down in the following decisions as under : i) CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) : In this case it has been laid down that since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assessee till the completion of the assessment, the reassessment order cannot be upheld. ii) CIT Vs. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd., ITA No. 71 of 2006, order dated 27-11-2006 (Bom-HC) “ In this case it has been la…

Janak Shantilal Mehta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1372/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1372/Mds/2017 $नधा!रण वष! /Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज! माथन, "या$यक सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1372/Mds/2017 $नधा!रण वष! /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Shri Janak Shantilal Mehta, The Asst. Commissioner of No.3, Rajamannar Street, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Non-Corporate Circle-1, Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AACPM 7952 R] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T.Banusekar, CA ()यथ' क* ओर से /Respo…

Bhanu Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2084/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mohd. Zammer Cutterwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 3314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54G

…8 of the Act. He referred to the cases of Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (84 CCH 117) of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Super Spinning Mills Ltd.(129 TTJ 305)Vardhman Holdings Ltd. (69 Taxman.com 376),Jai Shiv Shankar Trader Pvt.Ltd.(94 CCH 55)Videsh Sanchar Ltd. (340 ITR 66)and G. Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (ITA/7005/Mum/2012,AY.2006-07,dated18/10/2016).The DR supported order of First Appellate Authority(FAA) and relied upon case of Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (ITA no. 950 of 2008). 5.We have heard rival submission and perused the material before us. In our opinion,it would be useful to decide issue of…

Sri Jayadev College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

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

ITA 108/CTK/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that in the absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the assessment order will be without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed.” 11. Again, in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bombay) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that non- supply of reasons recorded to issue a reopening notice would make the order of assessment passed thereon bad as being without jurisdiction. 12. For the above reasons, the reassessment order dated 3.3.2014 is bad in law and hence, I cancel the reassessment order dated 3.3.2014 and allow this gro…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mavrick Sweet and Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is decided on ground No

ITA 2942/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Mavrick Sweet & Foods Ltd, Vs. Ward-6(3), M/S. D. Ostwal & Associates, New Delhi Ca, 303-304, Dakha Chambers, 2008, Hs Nalwa Street No. 38, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4663N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Otwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

…es not ask for s. 147 reasons and object to reopening, ITAT cannot remand to AO and give assessee another opportunity as held by honourable Delhi high court in CIT v. Safetag International India Pvt. Ltd. In the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) the Tribunal following the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. ITA no 71 of 2006 dated 27th November, 2006, has held that though the reopening of assessment was within three years from the end of relevant assessment year, since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the…

Dr.Veena Giriyapur, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 1/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148

…ding on this issue by the CIT(A). Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G.K.N Driveshafts (Inida) Ltd. Vs ITO (259 ITR 19) as well as decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs Videsh Page 7 of 8 Sanchar Nigam Ltd (340 ITR 66) objections of the assessee against the notice u/s. 148 are required to be decided by the AO or by the CIT(A) as case may be. In this case since none of the authorities below have dealt with this issue, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for deciding t…

Sri Bikramjit Paul, Uttar Dinajpur vs. DCIT, Cir-II, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ening, after the I.T.A. No. 1466/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 3 specific request for the same is made by the assessee to the Assessing Officer, vitiates the reopening of assessment. 3. In the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) the Tribunal following the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. ITA no 71 of 2006 dated 27th November, 2006, has held that though the reopening of assessment was within three years from the end of relevant assessment year, since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the…

Meghna Harish Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 23(3), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5264/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…l for the assessee, relied upon the decision in CIT vs Trend Electronics, order dated 16/09/2015 (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom.) by contending that the decision in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. was duly considered along with the decision in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation, we find that while framing the assessment, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons of reopening and vide letter dated 25/01/2013 (filed on 28/01/2013), no reasons were supplied to the assesse…

Smt. P.Hamsaveni, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1801/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Dass, JCIT (D.R)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 54F

…of principle of natural justice. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted reassessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. VSNL 340 ITR 66 (Bom) as well as decision dt.10.11.2016 of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri V. Ramaiah Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.1282/Bang/2013. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that reopening is based on the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and therefore when it was found that…

Cifco Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Osdii) Cr2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4393/MUM/2011[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2016AY 1989-90

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4393/Mum/ 2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 1989-90)

…he first round of proceedings. The Ld A.R submitted that the reasoning given by Ld CIT(A) in the first round was directly contradictory to the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012)(340 ITR 66). Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above said decision of jurisdictional High Court, the Ld A.R contended that the impugned assessment order should be quashed. 3. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has been furnished with the reasons for reopening. She further submitted that the assessing officer has extracted the reas…

Sunil Kumar Jain (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 5294/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2002-03 Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 25(3) F 205, Karanpura New Delhi New Delhi 110 015 Pan: Aahhs 2933 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Sh. B.Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.D.R. Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. B.Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.D.R

Section 148

…the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Non-communication of such reasons despite request renders the reopening as invalid. I rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66(Bom.). 5.1. I therefore quash the assessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee. 3. In the result the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st October, 2016. (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 31st October, 2016 • Manga 2…

Muller & Phipps (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 5575/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri. G. Nanthakumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 55(2)

…ording of reason should be prior to the date issue of notice u/s.148.” 4. The co-ordinate Bench by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19 and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 quashed the reassessment proceedings being invalid and allowed the appeal of the assessee. In view of the fact that the coordinate Bench has quashed the reassessment proceedings on the basis of which penalty was imposed and allowed the 4 Assessment Year: 2001-02 quantum appeal ITA No. 5926/Mum/2009, the penalty order does not survive. We, theref…

Anand Education Society, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-II, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 1005/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Director of Income Tax(E) Vs Anand Education Society, Trust Circle-II, 30, Community Centre, Ashok New Delhi Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAAA0239L Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Ch…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Anand Education Society, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147