Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT

166 ITD 113Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#6681 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

concealment of incomesection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 143companyindia

Judgments citing Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…full opportunity before the ITO to set out his defense against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 20. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT reported in 166 ITD 113, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and various other decisions held that penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defects in the notice and the provisions of section 292B come to the rescue of the revenu…

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…full opportunity before the ITO to set out his defense against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 20. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT reported in 166 ITD 113, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and various other decisions held that penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defects in the notice and the provisions of section 292B come to the rescue of the revenu…

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings were rightly initiated in this case and that the penalty was rightly confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TTJ 233 (Mumbai - Trib.) Where Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows: “6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate par…

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…e are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings were rightly initiated in this case and that the penalty was rightly confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TTJ 233 (Mumbai - Trib.) where Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows: "6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate par…

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2789/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…land Tractors (India) (O) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 275 CTR 291 (Delhi), Trimuti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Delhi), Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) etc. and contended that when 5 ITA No.2789/Del./2017 in the assessment order relevant limb of section 271(1)(c) i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has been invoked, it was sufficient to attract the provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. DR a…

PRADEEP SOOD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- I, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 534/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pradeep Sood Vs DCIT RRA Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New AEZPS3313K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/11/2017 passed by CIT…

P.K.COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,,MEERUT vs. PR.CIT, MEERUT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6039/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT C/o. RRA Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi AADCP4270D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25/07/2017 passe…

M/S HINDON FORGE (P) LTD.,,MEERUT vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4738/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. C.P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)

…was apparent from combined reading of notice and assessment order that impugned notice had been issued in respect of concealment of particulars of income. vii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai-Trib)/ [2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai-Trib) [2017] 187 TTJ 233 (Mumbai-Trib.) viii) DCIT vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) ix) Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the assessment order, penalty order and the a…

ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3116/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…[2012] 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi)/[2012] 138 ITD 189 (Delhi)/[2012] 150 TTJ 195 (Delhi) vi. Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No. 285/2007) vii. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT {2017} 84 Taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai – Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai – Trib.)/[2017] 187 TTJ 233 (Mumbai-Trib.) viii. DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai- Trib.) ix. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 3830 & 3833/Mum./2009 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty following his…

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT Circle – 3, Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Room No. 2, 6th floor, Prop-M/s Sai Venkatesh Ashar IT Park, Road no. बिधम/ Construction, Room No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial 17, Jeevan Kamal CHS, Vs. Estate, Thane, Kopri Colony, Pin 400 604 Mumbai- 400 603. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. ACCPL9583H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1617, 1618 & 1619/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 t…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…e are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings were rightly initiated in this case and that the penalty was rightly confirmed by the Ld.ClT(A). 6. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai- Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TT J 233 (Mumbai - Trib.) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows: "6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate pa…

SHRI SANJAY MITTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5205/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 271Section 274

…n-striking off of inappropriate words does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. Trimurti Engineering Works Vs. ITO 138 ITD 189 (1) (2) Hybrid Rice International (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No.- 285/Del/2007) (3) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai) (4) DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan 93 taxman.com 320 (Mumbai) (5) Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.3830 & 3833/Del 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that if two views are possible on an issue, the view which is favourable to the assesee has to be followed. For the above provision, he relied on the decision of t…

SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 4549/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 4Section 68

…8) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay), Trimurti Engineering Works – 25 taxmann.com 363, Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT - (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shahrukh Khan – (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.), Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA Nos.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009. 9. To proceed further, we would like to reproduce notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ready perusal :- “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Dated : 14.12.200…