How many judgments cite DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO (358 ITR 471), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 10(26), Section 142(1).

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO

358 ITR 471High Court2013#1726 most cited

What is DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · protective assessment · protective addition · reassessment proceedings · validity of reassessment · cannot make protective addition · reassessment validity · escaped assessment

Also reported as

34 Taxmann.com 300

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 68

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(26)section 61 protective assessment substantive assessment section 245c settlement application section 245d(4)live link scheme of arrangement section 245d income tax settlement commission full and true disclosure

Judgments citing DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO

Ravi Pichaya, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1992/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Ravi Pichaya, Director In Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., B-76, Midc, Ambad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422010 …. Pan: Aclpp9236E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1992/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., B-76, MIDC, Ambad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422010 …. PAN: ACLPP9236E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Responde…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 153/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma and Shri R.K. Batra (C.As.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 253Section 253(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 152 & 153/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 08-09. cuke M/s. Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Vs. D-44, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAKCS 1090 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 517 & 518/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 08-09. cuke…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma and Shri R.K. Batra (C.As.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 253Section 253(4)

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 517/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma and Shri R.K. Batra (C.As.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 253Section 253(4)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…he impugned income belongs to. By no stretch of imagination can the two said to be congruous to any degree. This proposition of the Appellant finds favour in the Judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHLF Venture Capital Fund v. ITO [2013] 358 ITR 471 (Bombay) which elucidated that “A protective assessment … is regarded as being protective because it is an assessment which is made ex abundant cautela where the department has a "doubt as to the person who is or will be deemed to be in receipt of the income". A departmental practice, which has gained judicial recognition, has emerged where it ap…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158B

…that the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act are not validly initiated. In this regard he drew our attention to several decisions the main decision in this regard being the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay high Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO 358 ITR 471 (Bom). Apart from the above he relied on the findings of the Tribunal in the appeal against block assessment u/s.158BC of the Act and that of ITA No.960/Kol/2011-M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. A.Y.2000-01 11 the CIT(A) in so far as the addition on account of unexplained share capital is concerned. 21. We have given a very careful consideration…