How many judgments cite Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

107 judgments on BharatTax cite Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (301 ITR 407), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 69C.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

301 ITR 407High Court2008#1008 most cited

What is Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is considered to have applied their mind and formed an opinion on an issue if the assessee fully disclosed all material facts and responded to queries during the original assessment, even without explicit discussion in the assessment order. Reopening an assessment beyond four years on such an issue without new tangible material constitutes a mere change of opinion and is impermissible under Section 147.

107

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · 301 ITR 407 · change of opinion · full and true disclosure · reassessment beyond four years · income escaping assessment · material facts · inadequate enquiry · Section 143(3) · Kelvinator.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 147 Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 69C Section 133A Section 139

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosure first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment inadequate enquiry mere change of opinion section 114 kelvinator fresh tangible material beyond four years income escaping assessment lack of enquiry change of opinion

Judgments citing Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

ACIT, Corporate Corporate Circle -1 (1), Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…yond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is quashed and reassessment is set aside.”  Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant CIT & Anr., (2008) 305 ITR 339 (Mad) (CLC 119-135).  Idea Cellular Ltd. vs DCIT and Others. 301 ITR 407(Bom)  Himson textile Engineering Industries Ltd, (2013) 83 DTR 0132 (Guj) (CLC 136-142).  Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. vs. DDIT(E), (2014) 361 ITR 0160 (Bom) (CLC 143-149). 8. On the aforesaid argument of the ld.AR, since it was a legal issue which goes to the root of the matter, we directed the ld.DR to file her response. The ld.DR had sought f…

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…hen the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to the deduction/ claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be contended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while passing t…

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…by the assessee should be allowed. He also relied on the following decisions: 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bombay) 2. Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT [2008] 172 Taxman 315 (Bombay) 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 4. Punia Capital (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay) 5. Marico Ltd. v. ACIT-(3)(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) 6. CIT vs ICICI Bank [2013] 31 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay) 7. Kapstone Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 305 (Bombay) 8. PCIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 1297 OF 2015 (Bomba…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…hen the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to to the deduction/ claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be contended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while passin…

Madhuri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Madhuri Enterprises Vs. Pcit-4 Private Limited New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan :..Aaacm8923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit, Dr

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

…ndicate non- application of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the respondent – assessee’s response to it. In fact this Court in the case of “Idea Cellular Ltd vs Deputy CIT(2008) 301 ITR 407(Bom) has held that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Moreover, from the nature of expenditure as explained by the petitioner to the Assessing Officer during the…

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…72 (Gujarat) 10) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai vs. India Cements Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 410 (Madras) 11) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) 12) Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CD. Singh vs. Income-tax Officer (2010) 129 TTJ 495 13) Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Mrs. Sejal J. Panchal v. Income-tax Officer. Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad [2018] 90 taxmann. com 305. 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that the reopening is not permissible where the issue has been examined a…

Patchirajan Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…nvoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act: 1. CIT vs Krishna Capbox Ltd [2015] 372 ITIZ. 310 2. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 273/[2013] 3. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2011] 332 ITR 167 4. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT &Ors. [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) 5. CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 :-7-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 6. CIT vs Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698 7. CIT vsMahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 7. Further, the assessee also stated that the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is as per the provisions of the Act on merits and sta…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…ome Tax Appeal No.296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.) [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 Taxman 641/55 taxmann.xom 514 (Bom.) decided on February 3, 2015, wherein also Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has taken a similar view and said as under (page 307 of 372 ITR): "......if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it." 20. In case of Mahendra Kumar Bansal (supra), th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 73/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri, Sakshi Gopal Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…hen the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing. Officer and he chose not to refer to the deduction/ claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be the that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind 'while passing the asse…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy 22 Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to the deduction/ claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be contended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while passing t…

M/S. Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 63/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…egard - i. ITO vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd [2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC) and [2022] 139 taxmann.com 316 (Guj.) ii. DCIT vs. Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd [2022] 447 ITR 370 (SC) and [2022] 145 taxmann.com 36 (Mad.) iii. Idea Cellular Ltd vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 7 ITAs 23,24 & 63/Mum/2022 Jet Speed Realtors iv. Hitech Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT WP(L) NO.6861 of 2022 (Bombay HC) v. JM Financial Asset Management Limited vs. DCIT - ITA No. 1774/Mum/2022 vi. Maharashtra Oil Extraction (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay) vii. Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bomba…

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 24/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 32 (1), Mumbai

ITA 23/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

D.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(4), Room No. 802, 8Th, Mumbai vs. M/S. Kapstone Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)

…1 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 1848/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 1454/Mum/2021 - A.Y. 2011-12 C.O. No.79/Mum/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.120/Mum/2021) (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/s Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- 702, Natraj, M.V. Road Junction, W.E. tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai Room No.802, 8th Floor, Old CGO Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 PAN : AACCK3513F Annex Bldg, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 APPELLANT/CROSS…

Dy CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Kapstone Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)

Dy CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Kapstone Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)

Kepstone Consruction P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1848/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Hitesh Jitendra Income Tax Officer – 5(1) Parikh, Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Mittal Castle, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 026 PAN: AABPP5220E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14 . 11 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23 . 12 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, M/s. Hitesh Jitendra Parikh (…

Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete all assessments assi…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…r interference and revision." 11.3 Hon Bombay High court in Income Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom)) decided on February 3, 2015, following its earlier decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. V. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) has taken a similar view that : “. . . if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.” 12. Even otherwise, the aforesaid discussion establishes that the Revenue Autho…