N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

312 ITR 70High Court2009#9894 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 55(2)section 139(9)section 148(1)section 49section 116section 147(a)fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of consideration

Judgments citing N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…TR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations whic…

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…TR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations whic…

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…TR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations whic…

STANDARD TELE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9761/Del/2019, A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd. , C-37, Ground Floor, Circle 24(2), East of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAJCS9262N Appellant Respondent Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against th…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA 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 269/ASR/2007[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

…atru, Jammu & Others, V. Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is un…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, 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 268/ASR/2007[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

…atru, Jammu & Others, V. Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is un…

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

…atru, Jammu & Others, V. Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is un…

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

…atru, Jammu & Others, V. Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is un…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

….). (m) RPG Transmissions Ltd. v. CIT: 359 ITR 673 (Mad.). (n) CIT v. A.R. Enterprises: 255 ITR 121 (Raj.). 13 Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (p) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT : 287 ITR 494 (Bom.). (q) Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT: 312 ITR 70 (Guj.). 15. He submitted that in the instant case the reassessment has been made on the basis of change of opinion. Referring to para 2.7 to 2.8 of the original assessment order, he submitted that there was categorical expression of opinion by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment that notional losses are not required to be set off f…

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. CGG MARINE RESOURCES NORGE, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 13 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 1493/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…in the nature of fee for technical services, and that it is taxable under the provision of section 44DA or section 115A irrespective of the business to which it relates. In view of the decision of this Court in 259 ITR 33 and that of the Gujarat High Court in 312 ITR 70, this Court is of the view that subsequent pronouncement by a Court or a Superior Court does not entitle the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment or that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts. The cla…

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

…in the nature of fee for technical services, and that it is taxable under the provision of section 44DA or section 115A irrespective of the business to which it relates. In view of the decision of this Court in 259 ITR 33 and that of the Gujarat High Court in 312 ITR 70, this Court is of the view that subsequent pronouncement by a Court or a Superior Court does not entitle the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment or that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts. The cla…