Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

371 ITR 81High Court2015#7149 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

RAMANATHAN ADAIKALAVAN,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

…Counsel placed reliance, inter- alia, upon following judgements:- CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Limited 328 ITR 561 (SC) :- 7 -: DSC Limited Vs DD IT(E) 365 ITR 160 (Bombay) Global Signal Cables India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT 368 ITR 609 (Delhi) CIT Vs CWC Corporation 371 ITR 81 (Delhi) HCL Technologies Limited Vs DCIT 397 ITR 469 (Delhi) Oracle India (P) Limited Vs ACIT 397 ITR 480(Delhi) Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit Vs DCIT 416 ITR 89 (Bombay) Anand Developers Vs ACIT 425 ITR 261 (Bombay) BPTP Limited Vs PCIT 421 ITR 59 (Delhi) Dell India (P) Limited Vs JCIT 432 ITR 212 (Karnataka) ITO Vs Ramachandra Raman – Co > No. 58/C…

M/S JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 512/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…roni Commercial Ltd. (2017) 146 DTR 145 (Bom.) (HC) 2. State Bank of India Vs. ACIT &Ors. (2018) 172 DTR 401 (Bom.) (HC) 3. Smt. Sarla Gupta Vs. The DCIT IT(IT)A No.5/JP/18 order dt.03.07.2019 (Jaipur) (Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Del.) (HC) 5. CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2016) 241 Taxman 392 (Raj.) (HC) 6. AshwameghCo.Op. House Soc. Ltd., Vibhag 2 Vs. DCIT (2013) 214 Taxman 4 (Guj.)(HC)(Magz.) 7. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd.(2012) 77 DTR 396 (Del.)(HC)(FB) 8. ACIT Vs. Rolta India Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 370 (Mum) (TM) 4. The Ld. A/R further contended that AO in the reasons…

ITO, WARD- 21(4), NEW DELHI vs. RUKMINI IRON PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H Co No.66/Del/2018 (Ita No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2017 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection. Co No.66/Del/2018 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Decision Of The Ld. Cit (A) In The Case Of Surender Kumar Jain (S. K. Jain) Wherein, It Is Held That Jain Brothers Are Equally Involved In The Accommodation Entry Business & Maintain The Documents & Record. " 2. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 2,40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Ratio Decidendi In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014), 2 Itr-Ol-68 & Pcit-7 Vs. Bikram Singh In It A No. 55/2017 Dated 25/08/2017 On Identical Issue Of Addition As Unexplained Share Capital U/S 68 Of The It Act. 3 The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add & Alter Any Fresh Grounds(S) Of Appealand/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Ground(S) Of Appeal."

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

…s made in the return or responses to the notices or questionnaires. This is necessary as the AO has to gather “tangible” material which is a pre-requisite for reopening the matter under Section 147 of the Act. In CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Del.), the Court held that the expression “reason to believe” on which a re- assessment under Section 147 of the Act can be validly ordered should 14 CO No.66/Del/2018 necessarily be based on “tangible material” which an AO comes by after original assessment. 24. It would also be profitable to refer to the decision of Central Warehousing Corpora…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…9-104. In this regard the ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). The ld. A/R further relied on the following decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bombay) (iv) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO ward 6(5) Jaipur (ITA No 354/JP/2019 order dated 06/10/2020 Therefore in view of the above cited decision of jurisdictiona…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…9-104. In this regard the ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). The ld. A/R further relied on the following decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bombay) (iv) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO ward 6(5) Jaipur (ITA No 354/JP/2019 order dated 06/10/2020 Therefore in view of the above cited decision of jurisdictiona…

SARASWATI REALTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(3), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3269/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Saraswati Realtech P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-23, Ground Floor, Ward-22(3), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs0744G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca & Shri Hemant Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he issue raised in the second reassessment was part of original assessment and, therefore, the second assessment is to be held as not valid. 8.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, 371 ITR 81, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, following the earlier order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vodafone South Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 363 ITR 388, has held that the attempt of the AO to revisit the same issue for third time without any tangible or fresh material could not be held as valid. The action of the AO 19 was…

SHRI GIRRAJ PRASAD GILARA HUF,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…upreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft India Ltd. (supra). Hence the assessment order so passed is illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The further reliance is placed in following-decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) G N Mohan Raju Vs. ITO (2015) 167 TTJ (Bang) 236. (iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 has quashed the assessment where the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of considering the objection…

M/S. BOSE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5705/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Plot No.4, Circle – 5(1), Salcon Aurum, Jasola District New Delhi Centre, New Delhi – 110 025 Pan No. Aaacb 3260 A [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…s made in the return or responses to the notices or questionnaires. This is necessary as the AO has to gather “tangible” material which is a pre-requisite for reopening the matter under Section 147 of the Act. In CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Del.), the Court held that the expression “reason to believe” on which a re-assessment under Section 147 of the Act can be validly ordered should necessarily be based on “tangible material” which an AO comes by after original assessment. 24. It would also be profitable to refer to the decision of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) and CIT v…

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [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 And 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…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2810/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the failure to dispose off the objections of the assessee by passing separate speaking or…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2809/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the failure to dispose off the objections of the assessee by passing separate speaking or…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2808/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the failure to dispose off the objections of the assessee by passing separate speaking or…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2807/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the failure to dispose off the objections of the assessee by passing separate speaking or…

BASANTI JEEVANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind, assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion. The ratio laid down in Asian Paints Ltd. vs CIT (2009) (308 IR 195)(Bom.), CIT vs Central warehousing corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Del.) and the ratio laid down in GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs ACIT (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom.), Techman Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 771 (Del.) supports our view. Further, if there is a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine the documents during the original assessment proceedings that cannot be the basis to reopen the a…

SRI. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1559/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s urged that the composite order dt.31.12.2008 is illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) G N Mohan Raju Vs. ITO (2015) 167 TTJ (Bang) 236. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the procedure provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft India Ltd. (supra) has been duly complied with by the A…

M/S.. UPKAR INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…ge of opinion, which is not permissible in view of the law settled by the following decisions and therefore, the reassessment needs to be quashed. (a) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del) (d) Madhukar Khosla vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) 4 A.Y. 2003-04 (e) BLB Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have have passed a well reasoned order on the basis o…