Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Light Carts P. Ltd.

AIRADS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaairads Limited Vs. Dcit, 4624/ 18, Ansari Road, Circle-2(1), Darya Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aaaca5793R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…not sustainable. 5.3 In support of aforesaid contentions the Ld. AR relied following case laws : i. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. V. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) ii. PCIT V. Superior Films Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) iii. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Light Carts P. Ltd. 404 ITR 574 (Allahabad HC) iv. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay HC) v. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. [TS-29-HC- 2012(Del.) dated 21.08.2012 (Delhi HC) vi. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (119 ITR 996) (Hon’ble Supreme Court) Airads Ltd. 5 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR s…

RAJEEV EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

…satisfaction’ of escapement on such unintelligible reasons mechanically. Such symbolic compliance of approval of superior authority under Section 151 cannot also be countenanced. 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Light Cart P. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 574 (Alld) has observed that in the absence of any allegation in the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment which is one of the mandatory conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, it cannot be said that…

HARYANA DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Haryana Distillery Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 16, Community Centre, Circle-11(1), New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabch0933K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th December, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-35, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2010 Declaring Income At Rs.1,73,82,410/-. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 30Th December, 2010 At An Income Of Rs.1,73,93,322/-. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

…gs initiated by the Assessing Officer is not justified. For the above proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i) Amar Jewellers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 4 (Guj); 7 ii) Pr. CIT vs. Light Carts P. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 574 (All); iii) NTPC Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 360 ITR 380 (Del); iv) NTPC Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 614 (Del); v) DIT vs. Mc Donalds Corporation (2013) 213 Taxman 26 (Del); vi) BLB Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del); vii) CIT vs. Noble Resources (2011) 202 Taxman 223 (Del); viii) CIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 166 (Del); ix) D.T. &…