Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…proceedings. Hence, the reopening was challenged in this case. Reliance was placed on the following decision:  ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Lid: 348 ITR 299 (SC).  Usha International vs CIT: 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)  Maruti Suzuki India Lad vs DCTT: 356 ITR 209 (Del)  Satnam Overseas Limited vs ACTT: 129 ITR 237 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  CIT vs Batra Bhatta Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del)  Deepak Kumar vs PCIT: 450 ITR 301 (Del)  Jal Hotels Co Ltd. vs ADIT 184 Taxman 1 (Del)  CIT vs Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) 6.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the reopening was i…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE CASES. WET INTER TRADE (P)LTD VS ITO 308ITR 22 (a) DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEM (P) LTD VS DCIT 371 (b) ITR 87 CIT VS MULTIPLEX TRADING INDUSTRIAL CO 378ITR 351. (c) Maruti Suzuki India ltd Vs DCIT 356 ITR 209 (d) GIRIRAJ STEEL LTD VS DCIT 402ITR 204 (e) DCIT VS SANTACK SOLUTION OPVT LTD 409ITR 301, (f) IHHHR HOSPITALITY PVT LTD VS ADD CIT 415 459 (g) REVOLUTIONS FOREVER MARKETING PVT LTD VS ITO 413 (h) ITR 400 (I) CIT VS KELVINATORS INDIA LTD 256ITR 1, DECISION OF D.H.C, CONFIRMED BY APEX COURT 320ITR 561 (J) NORTHEASTERN POWER CORPORATION LTD 416 ITR…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE CASES. WET INTER TRADE (P)LTD VS ITO 308ITR 22 (a) DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEM (P) LTD VS DCIT 371 (b) ITR 87 CIT VS MULTIPLEX TRADING INDUSTRIAL CO 378ITR 351. (c) Maruti Suzuki India ltd Vs DCIT 356 ITR 209 (d) GIRIRAJ STEEL LTD VS DCIT 402ITR 204 (e) DCIT VS SANTACK SOLUTION OPVT LTD 409ITR 301, (f) IHHHR HOSPITALITY PVT LTD VS ADD CIT 415 459 (g) REVOLUTIONS FOREVER MARKETING PVT LTD VS ITO 413 (h) ITR 400 (I) CIT VS KELVINATORS INDIA LTD 256ITR 1, DECISION OF D.H.C, CONFIRMED BY APEX COURT 320ITR 561 (J) NORTHEASTERN POWER CORPORATION LTD 416 ITR…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sharuk Passi, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesharuk Passi (Prop. M/S. Pascos) Vs Dcit 1/23B, Asaf Ali Road Central Circle-20 New Delhi New Delhi Aagpp7030F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Sharuk Passi Central Circle-8, Room No. 333, 15, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Extn. Sunder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aagpp7030F

…so filed during the course of original assessment. In the original assessment, the Assessing Officer was assessment without any adverse inference. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 209. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the trading of Tata Vehicles as such the assessee offers rebate and discount to the customers for sales promotions. Documentary evidence in respect of the transaction being sample copy of invoice, delivery order, transfer voucher was filed during the original assessment proceedings as well as…

Sharuk Passi (Prop. M/S. Pascos), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesharuk Passi (Prop. M/S. Pascos) Vs Dcit 1/23B, Asaf Ali Road Central Circle-20 New Delhi New Delhi Aagpp7030F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Sharuk Passi Central Circle-8, Room No. 333, 15, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Extn. Sunder Nagar New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aagpp7030F

…so filed during the course of original assessment. In the original assessment, the Assessing Officer was assessment without any adverse inference. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 209. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the trading of Tata Vehicles as such the assessee offers rebate and discount to the customers for sales promotions. Documentary evidence in respect of the transaction being sample copy of invoice, delivery order, transfer voucher was filed during the original assessment proceedings as well as…

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

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)

…ring the assessment proceedings. We are also supported in our aforementioned contentions by the following judgements: i. 348 ITR 299 (SC) – ACIT & Ors. Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. ii. 320 ITR 561 (SC) – Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. CIT iii. 356 ITR 209 (Delhi) – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CIT iv. 373 ITR 0596 (Delhi) – Prabhu Dayal Rangwala Vs. CIT v. 372 ITR 0762 (Bombay) – CIT Vs. Jet Speed Auto (P) Ltd. vi. 371 ITR 0179 (Delhi) – A. T. Kearney India Ltd. Vs. ITO vii. 371 ITR 0087 (Delhi) – Donaldson’s India Filtersystem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT viii. 367 ITR 0165 (Delhi) – Madhukar Khosla Vs. AC…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…Shri Mahesh Garg was ever produced for cross examination by the assessee hence such statement cannot be relied upon. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) JSRS Udyog Ltd. – 313 ITR 321 (Del.); ii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 356 ITR 209 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. – 348 ITR 485 (Del.) FB; iv) BLV Ltd. vs. ACIT – 343 ITR 129 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. – 357 ITR 24 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.- 320 ITR 561 (SC); 9. In ground No.3, the assessee has again questioned the validity of reassessment in absence of adjudication of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Barista Coffee Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Barista Coffee Company Ltd, Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, Shop No. 55, Community Centre, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Basant Lok Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aabcb798A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." 15. Following the aforesaid decision, a Division Bench of this court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 356 ITR 209 (Delhi) had explained that in cases where no query is raised, it must be held that the Assessing Officer had examined the subject matter even though there may not be any discussion in the assessment order. The court had referred to the decision in Usha International (supra) and observed as under (page 216) : "It is apparent from the above extract…