Mayawati v. CIT

321 ITR 349High Court2010#5869 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 148(2)Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 271

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 4(1)section 148(1)section 61section 90(1)section 39tax residency certificatesection 5(2)section 292bbcommercial rightsroyalty incomeassistant director

Judgments citing Mayawati v. CIT

VARUN GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1215/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69

…ly of issuance of notice within the prescribed period. Section 149 does not mandate that the such a notice must also be served on the assessee within the prescribed period as held by the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mayawati V CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). As far as issuance/service of the 1st notice is concerned, we further 12. find that the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings and therefore the provisions of section 292BB of the Act will apply. In Page 6 of 11 ITA No. 1215/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Varun Gupta Vs. ITO this context, the hon’ble Supreme Court in C…

ITO, WARD-2, ROHTAK vs. JAI SINGH, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8284/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274

…to be served despite the fact that the notice had come back unserved as it was the duty of the assessee to ensure proper arrangement at all times to receive dak sent at the address given by the assessee himself to the Income Tax Department. In Mayawati vs CIT 321 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that section 27 of the General Clauses Act creates a statutory presumption to the effect that if a letter is properly addressed, it must be deemed to have been served. In view of above submissions, it is prayed that the Department's ground of appeal may be allowed.” 4.1. In yet another submission filed by the ld…

SUNIL GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1215/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69

…ly of issuance of notice within the prescribed period. Section 149 does not mandate that the such a notice must also be served on the assessee within the prescribed period as held by the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mayawati V CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). As far as issuance/service of the 1st notice is concerned, we further 12. find that the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings and therefore the provisions of section 292BB of the Act will apply. In Page 6 of 11 ITA No. 1215/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Varun Gupta Vs. ITO this context, the hon’ble Supreme Court in C…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15 vs. SHRI HARISH BHASIN

ITA/570/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…u/s 148 of the Act were issued in all the three years. It is settled law that notices/letters sent by speed post and not returned by the postal department unserved/undelivered is deemed service. For this I rely on the judgments in Mayawati vs CIT & others 321 ITR 349 (Del) wherein following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.AIavi Haji vs Palapatty Muhammed (2007) 137 Comp Cas 692, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in view of Sec.27 of the General Clauses at when a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer it is necessary to further ave…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15 vs. SHRI HARISH BHASIN

ITA/572/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

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

…u/s 148 of the Act were issued in all the three years. It is settled law that notices/letters sent by speed post and not returned by the postal department unserved/undelivered is deemed service. For this I rely on the judgments in Mayawati vs CIT & others 321 ITR 349 (Del) wherein following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.AIavi Haji vs Palapatty Muhammed (2007) 137 Comp Cas 692, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in view of Sec.27 of the General Clauses at when a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer it is necessary to further ave…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 vs. SHRI HARISH BHASIN

ITA/574/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…u/s 148 of the Act were issued in all the three years. It is settled law that notices/letters sent by speed post and not returned by the postal department unserved/undelivered is deemed service. For this I rely on the judgments in Mayawati vs CIT & others 321 ITR 349 (Del) wherein following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.AIavi Haji vs Palapatty Muhammed (2007) 137 Comp Cas 692, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in view of Sec.27 of the General Clauses at when a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer it is necessary to further ave…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, J.P. BHAVAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 340/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…is remanded back to the Ld AO for determining whether the provisions of section 148 of the Act read with the provisions of 149 of the Act have been fulfilled or not. In this regard an extract from the case of Mayawati vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 321 ITR 349 (Del) should guide in deciding this issue: 6. In stark contrast, section 149 of the IT Act speaks only of the issuance of a notice under the preceding section within a prescribed period. Sec. 149 of the IT Act does not mandate that such a notice must also be served on the assessee within the prescribed period. Speaking for the Division Bench of t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…is remanded back to the Ld AO for determining whether the provisions of section 148 of the Act read with the provisions of 149 of the Act have been fulfilled or not. In this regard an extract from the case of Mayawati vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 321 ITR 349 (Del) should guide in deciding this issue: 6. In stark contrast, section 149 of the IT Act speaks only of the issuance of a notice under the preceding section within a prescribed period. Sec. 149 of the IT Act does not mandate that such a notice must also be served on the assessee within the prescribed period. Speaking for the Division Bench of t…

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…payments made for sponsorship rights cannot be ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 characterised as royalty: (a) Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd (321 ITR 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use…

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…payments made for sponsorship rights cannot be ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 characterised as royalty: (a) Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd (321 ITR 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use…

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…payments made for sponsorship rights cannot be ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 characterised as royalty: (a) Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd (321 ITR 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use…

RAMESH CHAND INVESTMENT & LEASING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. ACIT, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. PAN:AACCR3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st March,2013 of the CIT(A)-18, New…

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 80/[1987] 35 Taxman 131 (Ker.); Venad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 19 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO 463/212 Taxman 20/[2011] 16 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi) and Mayawati v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 349 (Delhi). 23. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted that notice to an Assessee under Section 148 and 143 (2) of the Act was different from a notice under Section 142 (1) for instance. Service of notice on the Assessee strictly in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (1) of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. Section 153 (2) of the Act made…

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…International Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker); Venad Properties (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 340 ITR 463 (Del) and Mayawati v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). 3.5 In view of these particular facts of the present case, it has to be decided whether notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. The relevant portion of Section 148 (1) reads as under: "148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment - (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation unde…

PROMINENT INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 818/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Prominent Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Now Known As Brv Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward 14(4), C-52, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi-110095 (Pan: Aadcp3196J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Ved Jain,Ca & Ashish Chadha Respondent By: Shri O.P. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain,CA & Ashish ChadhaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ter the expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In view thereof the relevant point here is that notice should be ‘issued". In this case, notice was issued within time. 5.2 In the case of Mayawati v CIT and Others (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Delhi) the Court observed as under:- “Reassessment - Notice-Notice u/s 149 - Notice should be issued within prescribed period - Not , necessary that notice should be served within prescribed period - Notice served by inspector of Income tax - information that assessee had shifted her residence and consequent service by speed post - Presumption…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…rnational Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker); Venad Properties (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 340 ITR 463 (Del) and Mayawati v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). 23. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted that notice to an Assessee under Section 148 and 143 (2) of the Act was different from a notice under Section 142 (1) for instance. Service of notice on the Assessee strictly in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (1) of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. Section 153 (2) of the Act…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…facturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2009) 308 ITR 38. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case. This case came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in another case titled Mayawati v. CIT & Ors. (2010) 321 ITR 349, wherein, issues were substantially the same as before us in the present case. Before adverting to the facts and issues in that case, it may be noted as to what the Division Bench had noted about the factual 2011:DHC:1792-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 P…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…facturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2009) 308 ITR 38. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case. This case came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in another case titled Mayawati v. CIT & Ors. (2010) 321 ITR 349, wherein, issues were substantially the same as before us in the present case. Before adverting to the facts and issues in that case, it may be noted as to what the Division Bench had noted about the factual 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 P…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1778/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…facturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2009) 308 ITR 38. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case. This case came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in another case titled Mayawati v. CIT & Ors. (2010) 321 ITR 349, wherein, issues were substantially the same as before us in the present case. Before adverting to the facts and issues in that case, it may be noted as to what the Division Bench had noted about the factual 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 P…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1604/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…facturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2009) 308 ITR 38. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case. This case came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in another case titled Mayawati v. CIT & Ors. (2010) 321 ITR 349, wherein, issues were substantially the same as before us in the present case. Before adverting to the facts and issues in that case, it may be noted as to what the Division Bench had noted about the factual 2011:DHC:1792-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 P…