ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437Supreme Court of India1976#70 most cited

What is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das authority for?

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

721

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment · escaped income · failure to disclose material facts · live link · beyond four years · material facts · bogus claim

Also reported as

2 SCC 302153 Taxmann 282

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 250Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 147(a)section 158basection 150true and full disclosurelive linkunexplained jewellerysection 148(2)beyond four years

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…n of an income which has escaped assessment. There has to be some kind of a cause and effect relationship between reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment. observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437] that, “……the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of this belief that there has been escapement of the inc…

Smt. Priya vs. ACIT Cir, 2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2001-02 Smt. Priya Vs. Acit, Circle 2 C/O Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel Meerut Advocate 282, Boundary Road Civil Lines, Meerut Pan: Aldpk 2963 N A N D Ay: 2001-02 Smt. Priya Vs. Acit, Circle 2 Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2001-02 Smt. Priya vs. ACIT, Circle 2 C/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel Meerut Advocate 282, Boundary Road Civil Lines, Meerut PAN: ALDPK 2963 N A n d AY: 2001-02 Smt. Priya vs. ACIT, Circle 2 Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. ORDER Both these appeals are filed by the assesee. ITA 2122/Del/2008 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Meerut dt. 17.3.2008 pertaining to the A.Y. 2001-02. IT…

Smt. Priya, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5505/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2001-02 Smt. Priya Vs. Acit, Circle 2 C/O Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel Meerut Advocate 282, Boundary Road Civil Lines, Meerut Pan: Aldpk 2963 N A N D Ay: 2001-02 Smt. Priya Vs. Acit, Circle 2 Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2001-02 Smt. Priya vs. ACIT, Circle 2 C/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel Meerut Advocate 282, Boundary Road Civil Lines, Meerut PAN: ALDPK 2963 N A n d AY: 2001-02 Smt. Priya vs. ACIT, Circle 2 Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. ORDER Both these appeals are filed by the assesee. ITA 2122/Del/2008 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Meerut dt. 17.3.2008 pertaining to the A.Y. 2001-02. IT…

Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-I vs. M/S. Indo Arab Air Services

ITA/299/2015HC Delhi20 Oct 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

…under Section 147 of the Act prior to the reopening of the assessment requires to be recapitulated. What could constitute 'reason to believe' for the purposes of Section 147 of the Act was summarized by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 as under: “(a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings…

Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-I vs. M/S. Indo Arab Air Services

ITA/292/2015HC Delhi20 Oct 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

…under Section 147 of the Act prior to the reopening of the assessment requires to be recapitulated. What could constitute 'reason to believe' for the purposes of Section 147 of the Act was summarized by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 as under: “(a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings…

M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information.” 5. The reference was made to following case laws: " Johri Lal (HUF) Vs CIT (1973) 38 ITR 439 (SC) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) " CIT Vs T S PLP Chidambaram Chattier (1971) 80 ITR 467 (SC) " H A Hanji & CO. Vs ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal) " Sheo Nath Sing Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Shri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) " Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " S. Narayanppa Vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 at page 222 (SC) " Ganga Saran…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…s decision was taken in the following cases by the Supreme Court. 1. Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the r…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…s decision was taken in the following cases by the Supreme Court. 1. Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the r…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…s decision was taken in the following cases by the Supreme Court. 1. Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the r…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…s decision was taken in the following cases by the Supreme Court. 1. Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the r…

Sri C M Mahadeva S/O Sri Manche Gowda vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/795/2009HC Karnataka24 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 255(6)Section 260Section 69

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO. 795/2009 BETWEEN SRI C.M.MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA CHAMALAPURA, KEELARA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR K.S.HANUMANTHA RAO, ADV.,) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSORE.…

Shri S L Basavaraj (HUF) vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand allowed

ITA/336/2009HC Karnataka07 Aug 2015

Bench: The Tribunal. By A Common Order Dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Revenue. Aggrieved

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260

…ssuance of such notice, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. –vs- Income Tax Officer 10 and others ( (1999) 236 ITR 34). The Apex Court in the case of Income-tax Officer –vs- Lakhmani Mewal Das ((1976) 103 ITR 437) has held that “the powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are `reason to believe’ and not ‘reason to suspect’ ”. It has further been held that before such action of re-opening is taken, the requirements of law should be satisfied and also that there should be a live l…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA/555/2012HC Delhi12 Dec 2012
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 260ASection 28Section 80H

…nnot be stated to be beliefs, which would be an obvious self-contradiction. 11. The entire law as to what would constitute “reason to believe” was summed up by H.R.Khanna, J, speaking for the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:- (a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. 2012:DHC:7425-DB ITA No.555/2012 Page 10 of 14 (b) The words of the statute ar…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/163/2012HC Telangana26 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 163 / 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus BHAGWAN MAHAVEER PURSHARTH PRENA NIDHI NYAS, SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR PASRAVNATH MARG, SECTOR-7, JAWAHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 11/09/2017 1…

Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA/1395/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 260ASection 68

…ITA No.1395/2012 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON: 31st August, 2012 + ITA No. 1395/2008 Smt. Meera Kapoor ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. versus Commissioner Of Income Tax ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % Facts: 1. The present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called “the Act”) is directed against t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Deepak Knits and Texturise Pvt. Ltd

ITA/769/2010HC Delhi29 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA 769/2010 Page 1 of 10 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 769/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel. versus DEEPAK KNITS AND TEXTURISE PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. R.M. Mehta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 29.03.2012 Having heard learned counsel for the parties in t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

ITTA/422/2006HC Telangana27 Aug 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

M/S Central India Electric Supply Co.Ltd vs. ITO-Company Circle X & Ors

The appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own

ITA - 17 / 1999HC Delhi28 Jan 2011

Bench: Us In The Present Appeal, Are: “(1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That Re-Assessment Proceedings Under Section 147(A) Read With Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Had Been Rightly Initiated Against The Assessee?

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

…ociety Ltd. v. CIT & Anr., (2010) 327 ITR 39 (P&H), it was held that the amount received by an assessee was taxable only after attaining finality from the highest Court. 16. A reference was also made to ITO, Calcutta & Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1972) 103 ITR 437 (SC) where it was emphasized that there are two conditions, which should be satisfied before the ITO acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 in respect of the assessment beyond the stipulated period, i.e., there must be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the ITO must also have reason…

Video Electronics P.Ltd vs. Income Tax Officerr

ITA - 1100 / 2009HC Delhi01 Dec 2010
Section 147Section 148

…![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) ## IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st December, 2010 + ITA No.1425/2008 Video Electronics Ltd. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Sharma, Advocate versus Joint CIT 70 ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate ITA No.1426/2008 Video Electronics Ltd. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Sharma, Advocate versus Joint CIT ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate ITA No.1100/2009 Video Electronics Ltd. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Sharma, Advocate versus Income Tax Officer ..... Respondent Throu…

Video Electronics Ltd vs. Joint CIT

ITA/1415/2008HC Delhi01 Dec 2010
Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.1415/08, 1425-6/08,1100/09,1103-4/09 &1200/09 Page 1 of 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st December, 2010 + ITA No.1415/2008 Video Electronics Ltd. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Sharma, Advocate versus Joint CIT ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate ITA No.1425/2008 Video Electronics Ltd. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Sha…