What is Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

How many judgments cite Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT?

248 judgments on BharatTax cite Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT (308 ITR 38), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 139, Section 68, Section 142(1).

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT (308 ITR 38)

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…reassessment is bad in law: - Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del.) - Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del.) P a g e | 7 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del.) - CIT v. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del.) - Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT: [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) - Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v. ITO: [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bom.) - Kalpataru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd v. ITO: [2013] 215 Taxman 479 ( Guj.) - Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: [1995] 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) 11.…

DCIT, VIKASH BHAWAN DELHI vs. RAJAN KUMAR, LAXMI NAGAR,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 130/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhridcit Vs Rajan Kumar Room No. 218-D Block, 31,Vijay Block Laxmi Vikash Bhawan, Nagar Delhi-110092 Delhi- 110 002 Pan: Caapk8381E

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT Vs Rajan Kumar ROOM NO. 218-D BLOCK, 31,Vijay Block Laxmi VIKASH BHAWAN, Nagar Delhi-110092 DELHI- 110 002 PAN: CAAPK8381E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Cross Objection No.124/Del/2025 (A.Y.2012-13) Rajan Kumar Vs DCIT 31,Vijay Block Laxmi Nagar ROOM NO. 218-D Delhi-110092 BLOCK, VIKASH PAN: CAAPK8381E BHAWAN, DELHI- 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain, CA Sh. Atul Dhama, CA Sh. Samyak Jai…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…truly material fact in the return of income. The re-opening has been made without application of mind and independent verification of facts. Reliance placed on the following decisions: (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 308 ITR 38( Del) (ii) Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) (iv) JSRS Udyog Ltd. and Anr v. ITO 313 321 (Del) (v) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Assistant CIT & Anr (2008) 305 ITR 339(Mad) (vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. V. DCIT and others 301ITR 407 (Bom) (vii) Mimson textile Engineering Industries Ltd. (2013) 83 DTR 132 (Guj) (viii) Bombay Stock Ex…

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2406/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly Known as the Madras Aluminum Company Ltd.), 3rd Floor, Core-6, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AACCS-7101-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 26(1), CR Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : S/…

ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

…ssessment proceedings. Thus, reassessment has been initiated purely on the basis of change of opinion, which is impermissible under law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on following decisions: - (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del); (ii) Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del); & (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. Per contra, the ld. DR opposing Cross Objections filed written submissions, the same are reproduced herein below: “1. Most respectfully it is submitted that Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 45/DDN/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to section 147 of the Act, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported in 357 ITR 24 ( Delhi). M/s Sharda Export Vs. the ACIT 10. We find that the ld AO had adjudicated the reasons recorded for both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act in a single reassessment order and completely denied the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, for the first notice u/s 148 dat…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/DDN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to section 147 of the Act, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported in 357 ITR 24 ( Delhi). M/s Sharda Export Vs. the ACIT 10. We find that the ld AO had adjudicated the reasons recorded for both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act in a single reassessment order and completely denied the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, for the first notice u/s 148 dat…

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to section 147 of the Act, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported in 357 ITR 24 ( Delhi). M/s Sharda Export Vs. the ACIT 10. We find that the ld AO had adjudicated the reasons recorded for both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act in a single reassessment order and completely denied the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, for the first notice u/s 148 dat…

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to section 147 of the Act, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported in 357 ITR 24 ( Delhi). M/s Sharda Export Vs. the ACIT 10. We find that the ld AO had adjudicated the reasons recorded for both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act in a single reassessment order and completely denied the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, for the first notice u/s 148 dat…

S K N SIKSHAN SANSTHAN,BHADHADHAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarskn Shikshan Sansthan, 1, N. H. 11 Bhadhadar Sikar 332 315 Pan No.: Aamts 1103L ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shafi Mohammad, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 57

…bjections raised by the petitioner, that until such a speaking order is passed, the AO could not undertake re-assessment. Accordingly, the reassessment order was quashed and set aside. We would also like to refer the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (308 ITR 38).In that case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dealing with the petition filed by the assessee challenging the re-opening the assessment. Deciding the appeal the Court held as under: ….on the facts the reasons which were supplied to the petitioner were different from the reasons purportedly recorded in the form attached to the counter-affidavit. T…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal followed the decisions of this Court in Wel Inter Trade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO[2009] 308 ITR 22/178 Taxman 27 and Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co v. CIT[2009] 308 ITR 38/175 Taxman 262 wherein this Court held that in situations where the reasons did not even contain and allegations that the escapement of the income had been occasioned by failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, the assessing officer would be barred from re- Page 44 of 87 I.T.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal followed the decisions of this Court in Wel Inter Trade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO[2009] 308 ITR 22/178 Taxman 27 and Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co v. CIT[2009] 308 ITR 38/175 Taxman 262 wherein this Court held that in situations where the reasons did not even contain and allegations that the escapement of the income had been occasioned by failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, the assessing officer would be barred from re- Page 44 of 87 I.T.…

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, \"B\" JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 620/JP/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11\n\nM/s Mukesh Jain HUF\n1-12A, 1st Avenue, Lal Bahadur\nNagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur\n\nबनाम\n\nDCIT,\nCircle-06,\nJaipur\n\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADHM6397P\n\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\n\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tiated after expiry of four years. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:  PCTT v. DSC Ltd.: 153 taxmann.com 535 (Del)  Avtec Ltd vs DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del)  D. T. and T. D. C. Ltd: 324 ITR 234 (Del)  Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del)  CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd: 171 Taxman 379 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd v. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del)  Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd: 343 ITR 141 (Del)  CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF): 306 ITR 173 (Del. HC) 6.5 Our attention was invited to the Profit & Loss Account of the assess…

AASHIYANA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…he reasons for reopening. In absence of the same, he submitted that Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the same. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 28 (Delhi). 6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. I observed that it is fact on record that original assessment u/s 143(3) was 7 completed on 20.03.2015 and assessed the income of Rs.24,03,970/-. It is also fact that reassessment…

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 522/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…n 139 or on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose, fully and truly, the necessary material facts. This Court in the case of Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22/178 Taxman 27 and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38/ [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Del) held that it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment already done beyond the period of four years unless the income has escaped assessment on account of failure, on the part of the assessee, to disclose all the material facts. In the case of Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd (supra) it has been held…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…g the proceedings are served on the assessee within the period of limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act, i.e., before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. [Refer: Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del); Shri Balwant Rai Wadhwa in ITA No. 4806/Del/10] 66. In the present case, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2014 was issued. Reasons recorded were communicated much later on 11.04.2014 i.e., clearly after the expiry of the limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment years as provided under section 149 of the A…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…g the proceedings are served on the assessee within the period of limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act, i.e., before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. [Refer: Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del); Shri Balwant Rai Wadhwa in ITA No. 4806/Del/10] 66. In the present case, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2014 was issued. Reasons recorded were communicated much later on 11.04.2014 i.e., clearly after the expiry of the limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment years as provided under section 149 of the A…

INDIA LUXCO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2406/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly Known as the Madras Aluminum Company Ltd.), 3rd Floor, Core-6, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AACCS-7101-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 26(1), CR Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : S/…

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROMOTION CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2406/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly Known as the Madras Aluminum Company Ltd.), 3rd Floor, Core-6, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AACCS-7101-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 26(1), CR Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : S/…

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

What is Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

DCIT, VIKASH BHAWAN DELHI vs. RAJAN KUMAR, LAXMI NAGAR,DELHI

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

S K N SIKSHAN SANSTHAN,BHADHADHAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, JAIPUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

AASHIYANA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), NEW DELHI

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

INDIA LUXCO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROMOTION CENTRE, NEW DELHI