Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

82 ITR 824Supreme Court of India1971#1720 most cited

What is Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner, while exercising revisional powers under Section 33B of the 1922 Act (analogous to Section 263 of the 1961 Act), must provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, even if a formal notice is not explicitly prescribed. Failure to adhere to these principles of natural justice vitiates the revisional order.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT · CIT v. Electro House · 82 ITR 824 · Section 263 revision · Section 33B (1922 Act) · opportunity of being heard · principles of natural justice · notice vs opportunity · revisional jurisdiction · vitiates order · erroneous and prejudicial

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Issues it is cited on

revision under section 263section 33malabar industrialsection 34erroneous and prejudicialshort term capital gainsection 263service of noticesection 26opportunity of being heardsection 11section 80

Judgments citing Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

V.Geethalakshmi, Coimbtore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1360/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Abani kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 136Section 263Section 57

…s not the case of the assessee that no opportunity was given to the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No. 1360/19 This view of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of Apex Court in CIT vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal (1971) 82 ITR 624 and Gita Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 496. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case, the AO admittedly called for the details of the expenditure claimed u/s.57 of the Act. However, there is no discussion in the assessment order. It is not in dispute that the Assessment proceedings are judicial proceedings u/s.136 of the Act. When the AO passes a Quasi-Judicial order, he is bound to bring…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. G. Manjunatha & Shri. Ravish Sood

Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…The powers u/s.263 came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v, Infosys Technologies Ltd., (341 ITR 293). Reference was made by the Karnataka High Court to the observations of the Supreme Court in the cases of Electro House (82 ITR 824) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, to hold that since the AO had not disclosed the basis on which the tax reliefs were arrived at in the assessment order, being important for determination of tax liability, there was definitely a possibility of the order being both erroneous and prejudicial. The High Court held that the argument that the mat…

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…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…ce before commencing proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under Section 263. [CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC)]. (vii) If the Assessing Officer acts in accordance with law his order cannot be termed as erroneous by the ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 21 Commissioner, simply because according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately". Recourse cannot be taken to Section 263 to substitute the view of the Assessing Officer with that of t…

Shri Hari Ram Yadav, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

ITA 215/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 54B

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The section does not speak of any notice…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…fetters on the issue of notice to the assessee and what was required was only an opportunity of being heard. He relied on the following case law in support of his contentions:-  Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 (SC)  CIT vs. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC) 5.1. On merits, he submitted that there was total lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer who passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, on the issues of cash purchases in contravention to Section 40A(3) of the Act and the mandatory disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. On LTCG and STCG, he submitted that the assessee had not provided the contract n…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: 28 "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The section does not speak of any no…

Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudharyassessment Year : 2012-13 Himalaya International Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-4, E-555, Palam Extension, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077. Pan: Aaach0158H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Meeta Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…enge can be laid to the power of the CIT in considering the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on a count which is not the subject matter of notice u/s 263. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Electro 7 House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC) has held that it is not necessary for the CIT to issue notice before assuming jurisdiction. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) has reiterated the same view by holding that : `It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is give…

M/S Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1560/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rang 13.7.1993 Lal & Others Vs. ITO 19 156 DTR 217 (Delhi High Court) New 10.08.2017 Delhi Television Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No.1560/Chd/2017- Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali 11 20 1987 AIR 523 (SC) S. Narayanappa & 27.9.1966 others Vs. CIT 21 76 ITR 496 (SC) Gita Devi Aggrwasl s 31.7.1969 CIT West Bengal & Others 22 W.P. (Criminal ) (SC) 176/17 Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union of India & Another 23 1996 AIR (SC) 691 Executive Engineer, 22.11.1995 Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Other 8. The Ld. DR, therefore, has submitted that as per law laid down in the aforesaid case laws, the a…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The section does not speak of any notice…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 21 Gautam Tube Corporation the assessee of…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 21 Gautam Tube Corporation the assessee of…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. 31 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The section does not speak of any notice…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of 22 Startech Engineers being heard. The section does n…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e relied on the decision dated 29th November 2011 of this Court in ITA No. 973/2011 (CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.); Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 222 (Del); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012) 214 ITR 293 (Kar.); CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 26. Mr. Manchanda gave a second set of written submissions on 1st May, 2017, this time running into 9 pages. Apart from repeating many of the arguments already made earlier, he also referred to a host of decisio…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e relied on the decision dated 29th November 2011 of this Court in ITA No. 973/2011 (CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.); Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 222 (Del); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012) 214 ITR 293 (Kar.); CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 26. Mr. Manchanda gave a second set of written submissions on 1st May, 2017, this time running into 9 pages. Apart from repeating many of the arguments already made earlier, he also referred to a host of decisio…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e relied on the decision dated 29th November 2011 of this Court in ITA No. 973/2011 (CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.); Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 222 (Del); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012) 214 ITR 293 (Kar.); CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 26. Mr. Manchanda gave a second set of written submissions on 1st May, 2017, this time running into 9 pages. Apart from repeating many of the arguments already made earlier, he also referred to a host of decisio…