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 38High Court2009#349 most cited

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.

248

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT · 308 ITR 38 · reassessment proceedings · section 147 · section 148 · section 149 · service of reasons · limitation period · mere change of opinion · full and true disclosure · escapement of income · Kelvinator

Also reported as

175 Taxmann 262

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 139 Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessment section 147(a)first proviso to section 147 beyond four years full and true disclosure kelvinator mere change of opinion live link change of opinion escapement of income reason to believe tangible material

Judgments citing Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 1190/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…llenging the validity of reopening as well as on merits. He has relied on following case laws : (i). CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., 348 ITR 485 (Del.) (ii). Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. vs. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del.) (iii). Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del.) (iv). CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop Ltd., 171 Taxman 379(Del) (v). CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he strongly supported the validity of reassessment proceedings being within the purview of law. It was submitted that mere produc…

Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2654/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Jindal Pipes Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, 2Nd Floor, Circle 4(1), Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacj2055K)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Thus, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del.) has opined as under: “In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to be…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 681/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 681/Del/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, M/S Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward 2(4), Vs. Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, Ip New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aadca1156B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 282/Del/2015 In I.T.A. No. 681/Del/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Ankur Products Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Ward 2(4), Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, Ip New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aadca1156B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 681/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/s Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward 2(4), VS. Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, IP New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (PAN: AADCA1156B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. NO. 282/DEL/2015 IN I.T.A. No. 681/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S ANKUR PRODUCTS PVT. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LTD., VS. Ward 2(4), Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, IP New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (PAN: AADCA1156B) (…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. vs. CIT AND ANOTHER [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) 29. WEL INTERTRADE P. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) 30. NESTLE INDIA LTD. vs.DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 334 (Del) 31. CIT (LTU) vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2016] 382 ITR 574 (Bom) 32. MUNJALSHOWA LTD. vs.DCIT AND ANOTHER [2016] 382 ITR 555 (Del) 33. NIRMAL BANG SECURITIES PVT. LTD. vs.ACIT AND OTHERS [2016] 382 ITR 93 (Bom) 34.…

Epc Industries Ltd, Nashik vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3210/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle H HariyaFor Respondent: Shri PR Ghosh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 41(1)

…TR 542 (Bom)] (3) German Remedies Ltd. Vs DCIT [(2006) 285 ITR 26(Bom)] (4) German Remedies Ltd. Vs CIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494(Bom)] (5) Siemens Information Systems Ltd Vs Asstt. CIT [(2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom)] (6) Haryana Accrylic Manufacturing Co.Vs.CIT[(2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del.)] (7) Asain Paints Vs Dy.CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom)] 5. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic pipes. Up to A. Y. 2001-02 company has incurred huge loss as a result it become sick company and got registered by BIFR in terms of sec…

Khanna Industrial Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 1845/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1845/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(2) 11, Satyam, 318, Linking Road Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Lines Vs. Khar(W)`,Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir.No:Aaack 2240 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 02/01/2013,Of The Cit (A)-20,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Trading Of Industrial Goods, Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/11/2003,Declaring Total Income At Rs. 24. 35 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292Section 292BSection 80

…he Authorised Representative (AR) argued that it was a case of change of opinion, that the AO had not issued notice u/s. 143 (2),that the assessment was not valid. He referred to the case of Silver Line (383 ITR 455) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company (308 ITR 38), Balwant Rai Wadhwa (ITA/4806/Del/2010). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that initially the return was processed u/s. 143 (1), that later on a notice for reopening the completed assessment was issued, that there is no evidence of…

Coca Cola India Inc.-India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 4487/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. R. Murlidhar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44D

…ted, as notice under section 148 issued is after expiry of 4 years. In support of his deposition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon various judicial proceedings as under: • Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT and Anr. Reported in 308 ITR 38 (Del) • Hindustan Lever vs. R.B.Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (BOM) • Coca-Cola Export Corporation VS. ITO reported in 70 ITD 498 (Del) • Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 13 DTR 204 (Del) • R. T. Paperboard Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4868/Del/2013 for assessment year 2003-04. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Of…

Goldtex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR

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

…bmitted that the reopening of assessment beyond the period of four years was not permissible. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court :- (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT – [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). (ii) CIT Vs. Sonitpur Solvex Ltd. – [2013] 362 ITR 305 (Gauhati). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, argued at length. He also furnished the written submissions, which read as under :- “Gr. 1 and 2(The reasons recorded did not point out that there was failure on part Assessee of the assessee to disclose material facts): 1.1 This is groun…

M/S. M.D.Packaging Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6198/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishimd Packaging Ltd, Ito, C/O. Sp Jain & Associates, Ward-6(1), Vs. U-17(Lgf), Green Park New Delhi (Extension), New Delhi Pan:Aabcm8236E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ent was sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years. This court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (supra) as well as the decision of this court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) The court noted that a material change had been brought about to section 147 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1989 and observed (page 368 of 378 ITR) : "It is at once seen that the amendment in section 147 of the Act brought about a material change in law with effect from April 1, 1989. Section 147(a) as it stood prior to April 1, 1989…

M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 86/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr6935N Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.11.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/s Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR6935N Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in thi…

M/S. Blossom Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 186/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R

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

…t by reason of failure of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. 3. The appellant's case is similar to the case of Delhi High Court in Haryana Acrylic. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del) it was held that - "There being no whisper in the reasons supplied to the assessee that income escaped assessment by reason of assess’s failure to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment, notice under s. 148 issued beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year was barred by limitation unde…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3481/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Manglan &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…(supra), has held that it was sufficient if such failure could be inferred. Notwithstanding the above position, we find that there is a direct judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Another (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del) in which it has been held that: “in the reasons supplied to the Petitioner, of income chargeable to tax.” It is on this ground that the Hon’ble High Court set aside the proceedings flowing from notice u/s 148 issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. When we consider the above extracted reasons recorded by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goldy Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3136/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, C.As. &

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3136/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Income-tax Officer, vs. Goldy Traders Pvt. Ltd., Ward 12(2), New Delhi. 109, Rectangle One, D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACG 2816M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Respondent by : S/Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, C.As. & Sh. Pranjal Srivastave, Adv. & Date of hearing : 07.09.2016 Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by…

M/S. J.B. Trading Company, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2338/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…disclose fully and truly facts required for the assessment. Hence, in terms of first proviso to section 147, the reopening is bad in law in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harvana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT & Anr. 308 ITR 38 (Del). Other decisions that support this view are Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) and JSRS Udyog Limited and Another vs. ITO, 313 ITR 321 (Del). Respectfully following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we have to hold that the reopening is bad in law as the AO has not alleged that the assessee has failed to disclo…

Constellation Capital Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4) & Anr

ITA/291/2016HC Delhi22 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 143(3)Section 147(1)Section 68

…i.e. non disclosure by reason of failure on its part is not discernable in the reassessment notice having regard to the opinion of the AO. Learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del) and another Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Limited v. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Learned counsel for the revenue urged that the appeal is not merited and that the assessee’s contentions can be considered by the CIT(A) to which the ITAT has remitted the matter. In the present case, the as…

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

…ght to be reopened beyond the period of four years. This Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del). The Court noted that a material change had been brought about to Section 147 of the Act with effect from 1st April 1989 and observed: "29. It is at once seen that the Amendment in Section 147 of the Act brought about a material change in law w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Section 147(a) as it stood prior to 1st April 1989 required the AO to have…

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2651/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147

…eyond the period of four years when original assessment was completed u/s 143(3). In support of this contention, he relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court :- (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT and Another – [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). (ii) Swarovski India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2014] 368 ITR 601 (Delhi). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. Proviso of Section 147 reads as under :- “Provided that where an assessment unde…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2000-01

Section 143(3)Section 147

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projectsw India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 281/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 147