CIT vs Mahavir Irrigation (P) Ltd. (2011)VIAD(Del)702; CIT v. IFC Ltd.

336 ITR 125High Court2011#24556 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT vs Mahavir Irrigation (P) Ltd. (2011)VIAD(Del)702; CIT v. IFC Ltd.

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…he case of Metal Rolling Works ltd. v. CIT [2011] mot impost ble because the AO himself was not iacoine was to be taxed. Therefore, it was held that it concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of f• mi i "^T- M e p:-J~ ~"J Sonspvt. ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 125 (Del)(HC), fa-** aoc agin riill because the issue was debatable. In the case of CIT v. Rubber fcL [2011] 335 ITR 558 (P&H) (HC) penalty was held not imposable dam was made in a bona fide way for setting off carry forward business loss f^r~=- --^ :^-^rne arising on sale of business assets. In the instant appeal it is clearly . . -ai ;he appellant…

M/S. Greenfields Public School Society, Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6263/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(12)(c)

…under: i) CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (S.C.); ii) ACITVs Sahara India Investment Corpn. Ltd. (2010), 04 ITR (Trib) 284 (Del.); iii) CITVs Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2010), 329 ITR 572 (Del.); iv) M. S. Bindra & Sons P. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 125 (Del.); v) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. s DCIT (2012), 14 ITR (Trib), (Del.); vi) CI Vs Mahavir Irrigation P. Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 241 (Del.; and vii) Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2012), 349 ITR 112 (Del.) 3.1 Ld. A.R. submitted that the application dated 31.10.2006 was rejected by the DIT (Exemption) vide order dated 06.07.2009 which was subseq…

CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd

ITA/626/2011HC Delhi10 Oct 2011

Bench: The Authorities Below Was With Regard To Tenability Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As „A.O.‟) In Levying A Penalty In The Sum Of Rs 21,34,200/- On The Assessee Under The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „I.T. Act‟). The

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr A.K. Chhabra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(9)

…tail levy of penalty. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: CIT vs Mahavir Irrigation (P) Ltd. (2011)VIAD(Del)702; CIT vs IFC Ltd. (2011) 199 TAXMAN 21(Del) and CIT vs M.S. Bindra & Sons (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 125 (Del). 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the order of the A.O. would show that there is a reference to the proceedings initiated under Section 147 and 148 of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note that the re-opening of assessment, that…