Hope (India) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. DEEPALI DESIGNS AND EXHIBITS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1710/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT Vs Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Central Circle-17, Room No. 356, Ltd. ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan 34, North Avenue Road New Delhi New Delhi AABCD5680K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 1827/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 34, North Avenue Road Central Circle-8 Punjabi Bagh New Delhi New Delhi AABCD5680K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) S.A No. 913/Del/2018 (Arising Out of I.T.A…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEEPALI DESIGN & EXHIBITS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1710/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT Vs Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Central Circle-17, Room No. 356, Ltd. ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan 34, North Avenue Road New Delhi New Delhi AABCD5680K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 1827/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 34, North Avenue Road Central Circle-8 Punjabi Bagh New Delhi New Delhi AABCD5680K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) S.A No. 913/Del/2018 (Arising Out of I.T.A…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD.

…e concrete. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as P. Mariappa Gounder (Dead) By LRs. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 1998 (232) ITR 2 (SC). It was also submitted that this proposition of law was accepted in Hope (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 238 ITR 740 (Cal.) which was followed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v R.J. Wood 334 ITR 358. 8. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had this to say about the re- opening of assessment pursuant to notice under Section 147: “9. As per Section 147, the AO may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess any income…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UBEROI SONS MACHINES LTD.

…e concrete. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as P. Mariappa Gounder (Dead) By LRs. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 1998 (232) ITR 2 (SC). It was also submitted that this proposition of law was accepted in Hope (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 238 ITR 740 (Cal.) which was followed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v R.J. Wood 334 ITR 358. 8. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had this to say about the re- opening of assessment pursuant to notice under Section 147: “9. As per Section 147, the AO may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess any income…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VI vs. M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD.

…e concrete. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as P. Mariappa Gounder (Dead) By LRs. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 1998 (232) ITR 2 (SC). It was also submitted that this proposition of law was accepted in Hope (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 238 ITR 740 (Cal.) which was followed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v R.J. Wood 334 ITR 358. 8. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had this to say about the re- opening of assessment pursuant to notice under Section 147: “9. As per Section 147, the AO may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess any income…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. R.J.WOOD P.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…sed retrospectively shall be the annual rent of such past year or years but not the annual rent of the year in which it is received consequent upon subsequent increase.‖ 9. This judgment was followed by the same High Court in Hope (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 238 ITR 740 (Cal.). There the same question fell for consideration directly. After quoting from Hamilton and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court put a stamp of approval on the position of law stated via-a- vis Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. We may point out here that as per Section 23(1)(b), the rent received or receivable, whichever is higher, would be…