New Light Trading Co. v. CIT

256 ITR 391High Court2002#4908 most cited

What is New Light Trading Co. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid if based on information that leads to the belief that income has escaped assessment. An audit objection can constitute such 'information' if it draws the AO's attention to a fact or law missed during the original assessment.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

New Light Trading Co. v. CIT · 256 ITR 391 · reassessment · section 147(b) · information · audit objection · escaped income · original assessment · income tax act

Also reported as

117 Taxmann 741

Judgments citing New Light Trading Co. v. CIT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC LTD

ITA/113/2026HC Delhi09 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…Page 7 of 8 “19. It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 741/[2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. P.VS. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13/103 Taxman 294, has held as under (at page 393): "In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC LTD

ITA/82/2026HC Delhi09 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…Page 7 of 8 “19. It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2001] 117 Taxman 741/[2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. P.VS. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13/103 Taxman 294, has held as under (at page 393): "In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by…

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 99/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…Vashishtha Bhargav vs. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR (148) Delhi. vii. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Limited (2000) 241 ITR 248 (Madras). viii. Bharat Ply Wood and Timber Products Limited vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 692 (Kerela) xi. New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Delhi). The ld. DR pointed out that in all these judgments, it had been held that an audit objection can constitute information on the basis of which re-assessment proceeding could be initiated. That the audit note was only drawing the attention of A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works the ITO to a fact or to a law which had escaped the notice of…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 101/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…Vashishtha Bhargav vs. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR (148) Delhi. vii. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Limited (2000) 241 ITR 248 (Madras). viii. Bharat Ply Wood and Timber Products Limited vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 692 (Kerela) xi. New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Delhi). The ld. DR pointed out that in all these judgments, it had been held that an audit objection can constitute information on the basis of which re-assessment proceeding could be initiated. That the audit note was only drawing the attention of A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works the ITO to a fact or to a law which had escaped the notice of…

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…be valid. Relying on the following decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are in accordance with law: 1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) 2. New Light Trading Company vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del) 3. M/s. Vaishali Builders & Colonizers vs. Addl.CIT vide ITA No.391/Jodh/2011, order dated 25.07.2012 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of CIT(A) / NFAC in quashing the re-assessment proceedings. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of IL and FS Investment M…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SVADESHI ENTERPRISE(HUBLI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal II, (102 ITR 287)”, the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of “New Light Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (256 ITR 391)”, and the decision of this Court in the case of “Dr.Amin's Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N.Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors (No.1), (252 ITR 673)”. 9. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact on the basis of material before it, in particular the fact that during original assessment proceedings a q…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

ITA 1559/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14

…[19991 237 ITR 13 (SC). Notice for reopening of assessment was based on the report of the internal audit party. The court held that it would be permissible. Similar was the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of New Light Trading Co. Vs CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Del). It is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ess Ess Kay Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2001] 247 ITR 818 (SC). In this case fresh material was obtained based on which the Supreme Court held that mere fact that the case of the assessee was accepted as correct in original assessment for the assessment year would not preclud…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT SMARTSERVE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5173/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…rtment raised objections in respect of the impugned expenditure and, therefore, reopening on the basis of objections of the audit party is valid. 15. In support of this contention, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 256 ITR 391 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that “Where the audit objections relate to factual error pointed out by the audit party, reopening is valid.” 16. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 237 ITR 13. 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently stated that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limita…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI C.D.S.PRAKASA RAO, L/H. C.D.V. SUBBA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…were initiated. Initiation of the reassessment proceedings has been held to be proper in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. PV'S Beedies (P.) Ltd [1999]237 ITR 13/103 Taxman 294 and the Delhi High Court in News Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 /[2001] 117 Taxman 741.” 10.3. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Kelvinator India Ltd., wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court held that reopening of assessment on change of opinion is not permissible. As per the discussion made in this order, we have already held that, the AO has not verified the issue and did not form any opinion, thus there is no…

DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. A.J. BUILDCON P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…ntroversy had been examined and determined by the AO ." 2.4.16 It is well settled that even an audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. CJT (2001) 170 CTR (Del)l38: (2002J 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies fP) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 JTR 13 (SC) has held as under (at p. 393): 'in the case of C!T vs. p.V.S Beedies (P) Ltd. (199$) 155 CTR (SC) 538; (1999) 237 ITR 13 {SC) the apex Court held that the audit patty can point ou…

DCIT 7(1)-1, MUMBAI vs. GOLDMOHUR DESIGN & APPAREL PARK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…stated above, an erroneous decision, which is also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, can be made subject-matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 2.9. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax O…

BAIJNATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…an erroneous decision, which is 17 also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, can be made subject-matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 4.10. A division of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) made the following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Offi…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…stated above, an erroneous decision, which is also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, can be made subject-matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 2.11. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax O…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…stated above, an erroneous decision, which is also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, can be made subject-matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 2.11. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax O…

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Unio…

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Unio…

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…roversy had been examined and determined by the AO .. " 2.4.20 It is well settled that even an audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Del)138: (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies (P) ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 ITR 13 (Se) has held as under (at p.393): "In the case of CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538: (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) the apex Court held that the audit party can point o…

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…roversy had been examined and determined by the AO .. " 2.4.20 It is well settled that even an audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Del)138: (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies (P) ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 ITR 13 (Se) has held as under (at p.393): "In the case of CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538: (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) the apex Court held that the audit party can point o…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2