How many judgments cite PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.?

185 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (432 ITR 84), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 153A, Section 250.

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

432 ITR 84High Court2021#515 most cited

What is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

185

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty show-cause notice · specifying limb · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · vitiates penalty proceedings · Section 270A · 270AA immunity

Also reported as

108 Taxmann.com 597

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 153A Section 250 Section 147 Section 270AA

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record date immunity under section 270aa section 270a(8)section 270aa section 270a(6)section 271(l)(c)section 271(l)section 270a(9)section 274 penalty u/s 270a furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ashish Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), Delhi

ITA 2411/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…venue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 30.03.2015 herein. 6. Faced with this situation, I admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show- cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty(ies) proceedings itself. Ordered accordingly. 7. Al…

T.V. Today Network Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.T. V. Today Network Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circle-25(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabct0424B

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER T. V. Today Network Ltd, Vs. ACIT, F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circle-25(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AABCT0424B Assessee by : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.554/Del/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi [hereinafter refe…

Sbs Transpole Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3690/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3688 & 3690/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) SBS Transpole Lilgistics pvt. Vs. NFAC, Ltd, Delhi B-1/12, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCT0779Q Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Revenue by: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/05/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3688 & 3690/Del/2023 for AY 2018-19, arise out of the order of the National Face…

Sbs Transpole Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)

Nilima Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.126/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nilima Agrawal E-5, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Afepa5240B ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…in turn had relied upon the judgment of its own Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565. 18. Furthermore, the Tribunal also noted the coordinate bench judgement of this Court in PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.). 19. We may note, that even the assessment order dated 14.03.2015, whereby penalty proceedings were triggered, did not indicate as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was being triggered qua the petitioner. This is evident from the following observation made by the AO: 8 Nilima Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur “penalty proceedings u/s. 27…

Vijay Power Generators Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17 (3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1140/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…bmitted that the charge has not been specified in the notice. Hence referring to various decisions i.e. Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC), Hon’ble Delhi High Delhi in Pr. CIT vs. Sahara india Life Insurance (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Delhi), CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka), Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Blackrock Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITA 658/2023 and PCIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal 4 462 ITR 313 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the ab…

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxation Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cate his satisfaction, as to which limb of section 271(l)(c) of the SHRI VINOD JINDAL Act was triggered qua the respondent/assessee, placed reliance on the following judgments: Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [20191 108 taxmann.com 597/[2021] 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) and Mohd. Farhan A Sheikh v. Dy. CIT [20211 125 taxmann.com 253/280 Taxman 334/434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB). 13. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, the Tribunal concluded, that the penalty order could not be sustained, and consequently allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. 14. Mr Kumar, in support of his appeal, has vehemently argued…

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxationtax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Meena Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1418/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1418/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Meena Gupta Vs. The A.C.I.T 27/29, 1st Floor, Gali No. 9 Central Circle – 14, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAGPG 6925 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhav Kapoor, Adv Department By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. ld. CIT(A), new Delhi…

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR | (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), Id. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Id. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. 10. ITA No.6053 /DEL/2016 ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 Consid…

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 (AYs: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vectus Industries Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 262, Jiwaji Nagar, Thatipur, Circle-1(1), Gwalior, MP Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCV5516B Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023…

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S Modern Agencies, Jhansi vs. DCIT., Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 236/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shailener Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…nue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 26.03.2013 herein. 5. Faced with this situation, we admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude 3 ITA No. 236/Agr./2018 Modern Agencies that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Satya Bhama Kanodia, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…to whether it was an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income; as the case may be. 5. The Revenue could hardly dispute that various landmark judicial precedents in PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) has settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such a failure on the learned Assessing authorities part indeed vitiated the penalty proceedings itself. We accordingly find merit in the assessee’s vehement contentions to delete the impugned secti…

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…see’s case is fit for levy of penalty u/s.271 (1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961’’. Settled law on the issue in controversy 08. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 432 ITR 84 Delhi, followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and held as under:- "The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT…

Mahavir Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. R. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 26.07.2017 herein. 3 Mahavir Singh 5. Faced with this situation, we admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly. 6. All ot…

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1)(c) of the Act without striking off of the relevant limb under which the penalty is proposed is no longer res integra, and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597/(2021) 432 ITR 84 (Delhi), while noticing the addition of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 dealt with this issue. 10. In the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Vide paragraph 60, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows:- “60. Clause (c)…

Nidhi Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 10. Considered the rival submissions…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. Virtual Software and Training Pvt. Ltd

ITA/392/2023HC Delhi22 Nov 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA 90/2020, ITA 109/2023 & ITA 392/2023 Page 1 of 12 $- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03 September 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 22 November 2024 + ITA 90/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 04 ……Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. SC. versus M/S GRAGERIOUS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. …… Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advs. + ITA 109/2023, CM APPL. 8845/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ……Appel…