What is New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

How many judgments cite New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT?

139 judgments on BharatTax cite New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT (116 Taxmann.com 151), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 1961, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 153C.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT (116 Taxmann.com 151)

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…DCIT, [20161 384 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, [2015] 371 IT 81 (Del.) 13. CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Rubix Trading (P) Ltd., [2019] 108 taxmann.com 177 (SC) 14. New Delhi Television Ltd.Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2020] 424 ITR 607(SC) 15. M/s. Anand Developers Vs. ACIT & Anr., Writ Petition No. 17 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020. 16. S.S. Landmarks Vs. ITO [2020] 117 taxmann.com 825 (Bom) 17. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 18. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications, [2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) 19. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV…

M/S. Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward- 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/O S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) On Legal Issue As Well As On Merit As Raised In The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Which Are Reproduced Below: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts & Disposing The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Taken Into Consideration All Legal Steps Before Initiating Action U/S 147 When The Reopening Of Assessment Was Not In Accordance With Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 151Section 250Section 68

…| आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/o S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAACO3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Revenue by : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Dat…

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

…disclosed the primary facts to the AO & also explained the queries put by the AO. It cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NDTV vs DCIT 424 ITR 607 (2020) (SC) has been very categorical that the duty of the assessee is only to declare primary facts and the secondary facts needed be discovered by the AO through necessary enquiry. V. The co-ordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT, in the cases of Peethambra Buildcon Ltd vs ITO IT A No.637/Del/2018 dt: 23.10.2018, M/s AST Pipe P Ltd (supra) and M/s Gauran…

Ajay Trading Company, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"यके सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 120/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ajay Trading Company Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata (PAN: AAEFA 5369 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 15.12.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 02.02.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri SonjoyMody, FCA Shri AngimKashyapBezboruah, CMA "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से Smt. Ban…

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…ings divulged the complete details as regards the authenticity of the said transactions to the satisfaction of the A.O. We may herein observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 151 (SC) had, inter alia, held, that though the assessee is obligated to disclose the “primary facts” but it is neither required to disclose the “secondary facts” nor required to give any assistance to the A.O by disclosure of the other facts and it is for the A.O to decide what inferences are to be drawn from the facts before him. It was obs…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी 'डीबी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 275/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati……………..........................Appellant Vs. M/s. Arihant International Limited...………………..Respondent [PAN: AAECA 5555 B] Appearances by: Sh. N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Akkal Dudhwewala, Adv., appeared on behalf of the…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

…the basis of which the Department could reopen the case of the assessee. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of reopening. 12. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. DCIT (424 ITR 607) is a case wherein the claim was already examined by revenue in regular assessment proceedings (para 15 & 16). The Hon’ble Court in Para-22 held that subsequent facts which come to the knowledge of the assessing officer can be taken into account to decide whether the assessment proceedings should be re- opened or not. Information which comes to t…

M/S Gopal Rice Industries, Dhamtari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 291/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 291/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries Village- Sambalpur, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Vimal Agrawal, Sunil KumarFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…f Punjab & Haryana in the case of Duli Chand Singhania vs Assistant Commissioner of Income (2004) 269 ITR 192 (P& H). Apart from that, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 151 (SC) had, inter alia, held, that though 11 M/s. Gopal Rice Industries Vs. DCIT-2(1) the assessee is obligated to disclose the “primary facts”, but it is neither required to disclose the “secondary facts” nor required to give any assistance to the A.O by disclosure of the other facts and it is for the A.O to decide what inferences are to…

Jindal Power Limiteed, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incoe Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 199/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 151(1)Section 37

…bay in the case of Ananta Landmark Pvt Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, WP No.2814 of 2019, dated 14.09.2021 (Bom). Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 151 (SC) had, inter alia, held that though the assessee is obligated to disclose the “primary facts”, but it is neither required to disclose the “secondary facts” nor required to give any assistance to the A.O by disclosure of the other facts and it is for the A.O to decide what inferences are to be drawn from the facts before him. It was cat…

Shri Satish Kumar Agrawal, Korba(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 252/BIL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.252/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Satish Kumar Agrawal Prop. Chhattisgarh Coal Transport, Agroha Marg, Korba (C.G). Pan: Agppa4780J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-Korba, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, Ca Revenue By :Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prakash chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…f Bombay in the case of Ananta Landmark Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, WP No.2814 of 2019 dated 14.09.2021 (Bom). Also, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 151 (SC) had, inter alia, held that though the assessee is obligated to disclose the “primary facts”, but it is neither required to disclose the “secondary facts” nor required to give any assistance to the A.O by disclosure of the other facts, and it is for the A.O to decide what inferences are to be drawn from the facts before him. It was ca…

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

ITA 82/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…material facts necessary for assessment, then, the A.O would be barred from reopening the assessment already framed. Apart from that, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 151 (SC) had, inter alia, held that though the assessee is obligated to disclose the “primary facts”, but it is neither required to disclose the “secondary facts” nor required to give any assistance to the A.O by disclosure of the other facts and it is for the A.O to decide what inferences are to be drawn from the facts before him. It was cat…