How many judgments cite Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT (367 ITR 165), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 37.

Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT

367 ITR 165High Court2014#3583 most cited

What is Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the "reasons to believe" are not based on new, tangible material external to the original assessment record. A mere change of opinion or a review of the existing material without fresh evidence does not constitute valid grounds for reopening an assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT · 367 ITR 165 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reopening of assessment · reasons to believe · tangible material · change of opinion · full and true disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 37 Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosure full and true disclosure kelvinator mere change of opinion income escaping assessment change of opinion tangible material escapement of income regular assessment reason to believe reopening of assessment section 151

Judgments citing Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra [2015] 61 taxmann.com 201 (Allahabad), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Arun Gupta v. UOI (2015) 371 ITR 394 (All) (HC), Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla .v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Delhi)(HC), Delhi High Court Le Passage to India Tours and Travels P. Ltd. ...v. Addl. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 109 (Delhi)(HC), Hon'ble High Court of Andra Pradesh in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd v. Income Tax Officer [1978] 114 ITR 404 (AP). L. Further, The National Faceless Assessment Centre has not disputed the fact that the appellant is ca…

Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Yr. : 2012-13 Bhartiya Samruddhi Vs. Acit, Circle 4(2), Investments & Consulting New Delhi Services Limited, F-5, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Kailash Colony, Part-I, New Delhi – 110 048 (Pan: Aaacb5336R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

…ying upon to reopen the assessment. Our rejoinder refers to following case laws – Karam Chand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. DC IT (2017) 399 ITR 323(Delhi) Donald Son India Filters System Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 371 ITR 87 Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (2014)367 ITR 165 (Delhi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) In view of the above submission, legally as well as factually, 148 action of the AO deserve to be cancelled and filed, as there is no jurisdiction for taking action u/s. 148/147 as explained above. The reasons recorded are not germane to the reasse…

Mr. Abhijeet Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2920/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 148

…roceedings u/s 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening assessment-Reopening of assessment was unjustified- Revenue's appeal dismissed." Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The reasons to believe" are not based on new, "tangible materials", the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that "The foundation of the AO's jurisdiction and the raiso…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…spell out the material that was failed to be fully and truly disclosed by the Assessee. It is therefore, not possible to conclude that the jurisdictional 'trigger' for re-opening the assessment was present. As observed in Madhukar Khosla v. Asstt. CIT 120141 367 ITR 165/120151 55 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi): The foundation of the AO's jurisdiction and the raison d'etre of a reassessment notice are the "reasons to believe". Now this should have a relation or link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver,…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.3768/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Addl.CIT, Vs. IRCON International Ltd., Special Range-4, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACI0684H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Date of hearing 06.01.2021 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 10/02/2017 passed by the L…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

…d Digital Global Soft Ltd. 380 ITR 386 (Kar). (iv) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)46 (Bangalore – Trib.) 4. According to the ld.AR that as per the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act there is an assessment under Section 143(3) or 147 of the Act has alread…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2048/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan : Aaacf1034E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, M/s. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, DSIDC Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. PAN : AAACF1034E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Revenue by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv Assessee by: Date of Hearing 31/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 30/01/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : ITA. No. 2048 (Del) of 2017 is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9 (1) New Delhi, against the o…

M/S M.S. Associates, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 4364/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…h are as under: “1. Peethambra Buildcon Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 637/D/18) (Del IT AT) 2. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (WPC 1357/2016)(25.09.17) (Del) 3. Sabharwal Properties Industries P. ltd. v. ITO [2016] 382 ITR 547 (Del) 4. Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT [2014] 367 ITR 165 (Del) 5. CIT v. Multuplex Trading & Industrial Co. ltd.[2015] 378 ITR 351 (Del) I.T.A. No.4364/DEL/2015 11 6. ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 52 - 53 7. Meadow Infradevelopers P. Ltd. v ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 397 (Del) 8. CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) 9. Ms/.Andaman Timber Industri…

Balbir Ispat P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6953/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish V. Pophane, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 6953/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Balbir Ispat Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, 207, Steel Centre, Ward 6(1)(2), Room No. 6th Ahmedabad Street, Carnac 508, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bunder, Masjid (E), Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 051 Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PA…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M & Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…ndefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment.” Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) 13 I.TA No. 2288/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if the “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible materials”, the reopening amoun…

M/S. Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…Laboratories Vs DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 023 (Del.) " Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 343 ITR 141 (Del.) " NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 346 ITR 361 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 415/2015 (Del.) " Sabharwal Properties Industries Ltd. Vs ITA in W.P.(C) 8994/2014 (Del.) " Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT in W.P.(C) 6729/2011 (Del.) " Indu Lata Rangwal Vs DCIT in W.P.(C) 1393/2002 (Del.) " Oracle Systems Corporation Vs ADIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 291 (Del.) " Pr…

M/S. Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 248/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.248/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…er, Ld. AR submitted that in absence of any tangible material, the re- opening is unsustainable and relied on various bindings decisions/judgment in general and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla A.Y.2007-08 Vs. ACIT reported as 367 ITR 165 in particular. Stating that the Assessing Officer is only empowered to re-assess the concealment of income, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer he has no power to re-assess and a reference is made to the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported as 320 ITR 561 (SC). Br…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…ion." 8. Further reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements, which are on the similar propositions:- • Aventis Ph arm a Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) • CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. ( 348 ITR 485)(Delhi) • Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) • Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) • CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) • Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.) • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT 366 ITR 115(Delhi) • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536(Delhi) • Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. J. P. Janjid 5 M/s. Ju…

Shri Vineet Sethi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6359/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6359/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vineet Sethi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1105, Sbi, Cghs Society, Vikas Ward-71(1), Puri, New Delhi-110015 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahcps8765K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…sment. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment in the absence of any new tangible material was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Donaldson India Filters Systems (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 371 ITR 87 (Del.) " Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del.) " Indu Lata Rangwala Vs DCIT 384 ITR 337 (Del.) 8. In her rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the assessee escaped the assessment since the claim of loss from house property was not correctly made as the property was in joint name and the assessee was…

M/S. Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4235/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4235/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp7081P Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.1 1,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.8,24,270/-Under The Head Income From House Property.” 2 Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd. 3. Vide Ground No. 1, The Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Validity Of The Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…he reasons on which Ld. AO has formed his belief is totally wrong and void-ab-initio, therefore the notice U/s 148 is not valid in law and needs to be quashed. We rely on following judgements; - MOH1NDER SINGH MALIK 267 ITR 716 (P&H). MADHUKAR KHOSLA VS. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (DEL) CIT VS. SMT. PRAMJ1T KAUR 205 TAXATION515 (P & H.) SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD. 329 ITR 110 (DEL) 5 Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd. CIT VS. (1) ATUL JAIN (2) SMT. VINITA JAIN 299 ITR 383 (DEL) SECOND, that as per para 2 of the reasons supplied to us is that, "The brief facts are that search and seizure action was carried out at various pr…

M/S.. Upkar International (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…sment needs to be quashed. (a) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del) (d) Madhukar Khosla vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) 4 A.Y. 2003-04 (e) BLB Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have have passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as well as prevailing law. He further stated that Notice u/s. 148 has…

M/S Schneider Electric India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5185/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)(c)

…ial for reopening of the assessment, much less the tangible material. In support of the proposition, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orient craft Ltd reported in 354 ITR 536 (Delhi), Madhukar Khosla reported in 367 ITR 165(Delhi), and Mohan Gupta HUF 365 ITR 115 (Delhi ) 2. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 25/03/ 2009, which is beyond the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore according to the proviso to the section 147 of the Act , no reassessment could be made unless there is a failure on the part of the assesse…

Schneider Electric India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4386/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)(c)