Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

…proval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. A bare endorsement of the proposal Would not be sufficient. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 (Cal.) and Muthoottu Mini Kuries v. Dy. CIT[2001 ] 250 ITR 455 (Ker.) hold so." [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5 It is trite that in order to invoke provisions of Section 142 (2A), two conditions have to be fulfilled i.e. • Nature and Complexity of the Accounts; and • Interest of the revenue In absence of both these ingredients, provisions of Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Asse…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

…proval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. A bare endorsement of the proposal Would not be sufficient. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 (Cal.) and Muthoottu Mini Kuries v. Dy. CIT[2001 ] 250 ITR 455 (Ker.) hold so." [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5 It is trite that in order to invoke provisions of Section 142 (2A), two conditions have to be fulfilled i.e. • Nature and Complexity of the Accounts; and • Interest of the revenue In absence of both these ingredients, provisions of Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Asse…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…proval must reflect the application ofmind to thefacts ofthe case. A bare endorsement of the proposal •would not be sufficient. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236ITR 671 (Cal) and and Muthoottu Mini-Kuries v. Dy. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 455 (Ker) hold so. " (emphasis supplied.) (f J2. 'ilic highlighted portion of the said paragraph indicates that the Assessing Officer should have examined the books of accounts and made a genuine and honest attempt to understand the accounts. A cursory look at the books, it was stated, was not sufficient- The aforesaid observations find resonance and…