ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur

102 ITD 189Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#2114 most cited

What is ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur authority for?

Information received from the CIB (Central Information Branch) wing constitutes valid material for the assessing officer to reopen an assessment under Section 147, as a CIB letter provides fresh tangible material for initiating reassessment proceedings.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Gurinder Kaur · 102 ITD 189 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reopening of assessment · CIB information · fresh tangible material · escapement of income

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55section 47going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitionnon application of mind

Judgments citing ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…07 (Ker) vii. CIT v. J. Vijaya Lakshmi 122 Taxman 649 (Mad) viii. Assam Company (India) Ltd. v. CIT 256 ITR 423 (Gau) 82 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ix. ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) 42. We have considered the rival arguments made by both sides, perused the orders of Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book placed on behalf of the Assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal in case of M.K. Ajat Shatru relates to th…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…07 (Ker) vii. CIT v. J. Vijaya Lakshmi 122 Taxman 649 (Mad) viii. Assam Company (India) Ltd. v. CIT 256 ITR 423 (Gau) 82 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ix. ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) 42. We have considered the rival arguments made by both sides, perused the orders of Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book placed on behalf of the Assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal in case of M.K. Ajat Shatru relates to th…

Jai Deep Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1030/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 cuke Shri Jaideep Singh The ITO, Vs. Village & Post- Ladana via Phagi, Ward-7(2), District-Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BJXPS 1921 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application filed by the assessee u/s 27 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 12(1)(1), M/S. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 430, 4Th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Aafca6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…terprises Ltd. upheld the order of the Tribunal wherein it quashed the reassessment proceedings which was challenged by way of application under rule 27 of the Rules. Similar view has been taken in the following decisions namely ; 1. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del.) 2. ACIT vs. Rajkumar Jalan IT(SS)A No.28/Del/12. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly opposed the admission of application of the assessee under rule 27 of the rules challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to frame assessment under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act by referring to the said rules and prayed that the applic…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4573/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4572 and 4573/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08) Brijbasi Education and Welfare Vs. Addl. CIT, Society, Range-1, 20A, Govindnagar, Mathura, Ghaziabad Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Adv Revenue by: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the 2 appeals filed by the same assessee. The parti…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4572/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4572 and 4573/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08) Brijbasi Education and Welfare Vs. Addl. CIT, Society, Range-1, 20A, Govindnagar, Mathura, Ghaziabad Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Adv Revenue by: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the 2 appeals filed by the same assessee. The parti…

Smt. Nirmal Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 700/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nirmal Kaur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1966, Ward-1(2), Amritsar Gali Arorian, Hall Bazar, Amritsar [PAN: AAWPK 8504D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 19.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 14.06.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar ('CIT(A)' for shor…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Charanjit Singh Sarna, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3944/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132ASection 153ASection 41(1)Section 68

…following judgments: • CIT v. Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 97 of 2012 dated 26.03.2012 Bombay High Court • DCIT v. Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. in ITA No. 361/Del/2011 dated 30.10.2014 ITAT Delhi • ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur [2006] 102 ITD 189 • ACIT v. Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 5544/Del/2010 dated 05.12.2013 ITAT Delhi 8. The Ld. AR also submitted that even on merits, regarding addition of Rs. 1,03,73,611/- in A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 1,12,27,860/- in A.Y. 2009-10, the CIT(A) has given a detailed and reasoned findings. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) is cor…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Charanjit Singh Sarna, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3943/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132ASection 153ASection 41(1)Section 68

…following judgments: • CIT v. Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 97 of 2012 dated 26.03.2012 Bombay High Court • DCIT v. Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. in ITA No. 361/Del/2011 dated 30.10.2014 ITAT Delhi • ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur [2006] 102 ITD 189 • ACIT v. Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 5544/Del/2010 dated 05.12.2013 ITAT Delhi 8. The Ld. AR also submitted that even on merits, regarding addition of Rs. 1,03,73,611/- in A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 1,12,27,860/- in A.Y. 2009-10, the CIT(A) has given a detailed and reasoned findings. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) is cor…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whiteline Barter Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5225/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n.com 27 (Bombay) and DCIT vs. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahd.), submitted in the form of written submissions without throwing lights on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) decided the issue in controversy after discussing the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Deli High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in favour of the assessee by holding that, “it is open to the Respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new grounds in defence of the order appealed against under Rule 27 of the Rules.” 8. Hon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whiteline Barter Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5224/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n.com 27 (Bombay) and DCIT vs. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahd.), submitted in the form of written submissions without throwing lights on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) decided the issue in controversy after discussing the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Deli High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in favour of the assessee by holding that, “it is open to the Respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new grounds in defence of the order appealed against under Rule 27 of the Rules.” 8. Hon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhansafal Vyapaar Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5223/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n.com 27 (Bombay) and DCIT vs. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahd.), submitted in the form of written submissions without throwing lights on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) decided the issue in controversy after discussing the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Deli High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in favour of the assessee by holding that, “it is open to the Respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new grounds in defence of the order appealed against under Rule 27 of the Rules.” 8. Hon…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Karan Polymers(P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1849/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…s. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj.), the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavery Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) and the coordinate bench decision of Delhi in ITO, Wd-11(6) Vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del). On the other hand, the Ld. AR supported the action of Ld. CIT(A) and relied on the following decisions to support the impugned order: i) DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 660/Kol/2011 dated 03.02.2016, ii) ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437, iii) S. P. Agarwalla Vs. ITO reported in 140 ITR 1010, iv) CIT Vs.…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Karan Polymers(P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1848/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…s. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj.), the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavery Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) and the coordinate bench decision of Delhi in ITO, Wd-11(6) Vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del). On the other hand, the Ld. AR supported the action of Ld. CIT(A) and relied on the following decisions to support the impugned order: i) DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 660/Kol/2011 dated 03.02.2016, ii) ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437, iii) S. P. Agarwalla Vs. ITO reported in 140 ITR 1010, iv) CIT Vs.…

ITO, Ward-5(4) vs. Modern Home Care Products Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/DEL/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 55

…ant in appeal. In fact, the courts in certain decisions also held that the respondent can raise new grounds/plea even if there is no formal memorandum of cross objection filed by the respondent. He vehemently relied on 83 ITR 223, 234 ITR 663, 256 ITR 423 and 102 ITD 189. He therefore submitted that the cross objection filed by the respondent is Pari material to an appeal filed by the appellant and therefore the rights available to an appellant in an appeal before the tribunal are equally available to a respondent in the cross objections without any fetters. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5994/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 148

…spondent has legal right to support the order of first appellate authority on any ground decided against him even though no independent appeal/cross objection is filed, relying upon another decision of this Tribunal passed in case of Gurinder Kaur reported in 102 ITD 189. Accordingly, the application filed under rule 27 is valid and proceeded to be adjudicated. Before proceeding further, the reasons recorded in present case are reproduced below: “As per records ITR for A.Y.2008-09 has been filed on 10-09-2009 declaring income of Rs.3,27,854/- which was processed u/s 143(1) on 31-03-2011 on the same income. On v…

Asst CIT 12(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd ( Formlery M.S, Tcs Business Transformation Solution Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, the plea of assessee under rule 27 of the Tribunal

ITA 6648/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/S Tcs Payer Unit, Business Transformation Centre-1 28Th Floor, World Vs. Solutions Ltd.) Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Sjm Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai-400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 Pan No.Aacp8925G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Asst. Commissioner of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/s TCS Payer Unit, Business Transformation Centre-1 28th Floor, World Vs. Solutions Ltd.) Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, SJM Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai-400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 PAN No.AACP8925G Appellant .. Respondent CO No.80/Mum/2015 (Arising out of 6648/Mum/2012 for AY 2005-06) Tata Consultancy Services Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/s TCS Business Payer Unit, Transforma…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…ude the ITO to reopen the assessment of an earlier year on the basis of his findings of fact made on the basis of fresh materials in the course of assessment of the next assessment year. Therefore, the appeal was to be dismissed v) ITO Vs GUrinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (ITAT-Delhi) Another wing of the, Income-tax department, which was entrusted with the task-of-collecting information relevant to the detection of tax evasion. The Assessing Officer could not be said to have merely suspected that income had escaped assessment. He was bound to give prima facie credence to the information coming from his own departm…

Sri Bikramjit Paul, Uttar Dinajpur vs. DCIT, Cir-II, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 148

…um.}(Trib.); www.itatonline.org • Jeevanlal Jain ITA No. 910/M/2014 dt 13-1-2016, Bench J; (Mum.) (Trib.). 4. The ld. D.R. relied on the decision of the Delhi ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-11(6), New Delhi –vs.- Smt. Gurinder Kaur [2006] 102 ITD 189 (Delhi) and argued that where the assessee was aware of reasons for reopening the assessment, non-communication of reasons would not be fatal to the validity of reassessment proceedings. The proposition laid down in this case does not apply to the facts of the case on hand for the reasons that, it cannot be said that the assessee in this case was…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mckinsey Kinowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 499/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Circle-16(2), Vatika Business Park, New Delhi. Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Mckinsey Knowledge Circle-16(2), Centre Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, New Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate & Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr & Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue - Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ound has been taken in the appeal filed by the Revenue, he raised such an oral ground and requested for its consideration and decision. In support of this argument, he relied on the order of the Delhi bench of the tribunal in ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur 32 (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Del) in which it has been laid down that it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new points or contentions provided they do not involve investigation into facts and an opportunity is given to other side to meet the contentions. Au contraire, the ld. AR strongly objected, firstly, to the making of such an oral re…