Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Max India Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd.

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

…ustrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue and reference was made on…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

…ustrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue and reference was made on…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

…ustrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue and reference was made on…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)- Pg. 58- 62 CLC CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC) • Vimgi Investment (P) Limited 290 ITR 505 (Del) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- • In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, re- assessment order, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 15 ITA No.1462.Del.2016 Jindal Steel & Power Limited A mere suspicion/ statement that the assessment order seems to be erroneous/ prejudic…

M/S. Premier Book Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

…ly on the ground that in the books of accounts it was mentioned as „goodwill‟ and nothing else. As has been held by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Max India Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 505 (Delhi) once a plausible view is taken, it is not open to the Commissioner to exercise the power under Section 263 of the Act.” 11. Considering the facts of the case in hand in light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 5,41,406/-. 12. In the result, the appea…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above proposition, he also relied on the following decisions: 11 a) CIT Vs. Max India Limited reported in 268 ITR 128 [P&H] b) CIT V. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) [SLP of the Revenue dismissed in 266 ITR (St.) 101.] c) Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) d) CIT vs. Vikash Polymers: 194 Taxman 57 (Del) e) CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.: 331 ITR 192:(Del.) f) CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 194 Taxman 324 (Del.) g) CIT v. Kelvinator of India: 323 ITR 231 (Del.) h) CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) i) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) j) CI…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Teletech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Department as well as

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Acit Vs Bharti Teletech Ltd., Circle 2(1), D-195, Room No. 398D, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, C.R. Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb3989M) C.O. No. 72/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 3873/Del/2012) Ay: 2004-05 Bharti Teletech Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 2(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Dr Respondent By: Shri Amit Bhalla, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2016

…ly on the ground that in the books of accounts it was mentioned as “goodwill‟ and nothing else. As has been held by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Max India Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 505 (Delhi) once a plausible view is taken, it is not open to the Commissioner to exercise the power under Section 263 of the Act.” 12. Although the above judgment was rendered in the context of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court vis-à-vis the issue at hand i.e. depreciation on goodwill is very much relev…

Commissioner vs. Mis Bharti Teletech Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

…e ground that in the books of accounts it was mentioned as "goodwill" and nothing else. As has been held by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Max India Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vimgi Investment P.Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 505 (Delhi) once a plausible view is taken, it is not open to the Commissioner to exercise the power under Section 263 of the Act.” ITA496-14 Page 7 10. In Smifs (supra), the Court was pointedly answering the questions as to whether goodwill would be within the meaning of Section 32. After quoting Explanation (3) to Section 32 (1), th…

Areva T & D India Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

…e ground that in the books of accounts it was mentioned as "goodwill" and nothing else. As has been held by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83, Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT v. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 505 (Delhi) once a plausible view is taken, it is not open to the Commissioner to exercise the power under Section 263 of the Act.” 11. It would also be necessary to consider the relevant terms of the slump sale agreement entered into between the transferor and the transferee on 30th June, 2004. “WHEREAS: (i) The Activity Transferor c…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Leo Financial Services Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…nd are applicable from the assessment year 2002-03 onwards. There are two decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikram Aditya and Associates P. Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 268 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd. (2007) 290 ITR 505 directly on the issue. In these two cases, it has been held that order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and therefore revisable under Section 263 of the Act, as Section 94(7) relating to dividend stripping became a part of the statute and is applicable from Assessment Year 2002-03 onwards and is not applicable to earl…