Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT

251 ITR 541High Court2001#2586 most cited

What is Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT authority for?

Once an assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, for example by providing loan confirmations or producing creditors, their claim should not be rejected merely on suspicion. Appellate authorities should generally not remand a case to afford lower authorities or parties a second opportunity to adduce evidence if they failed to do so despite having the opportunity.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT · 251 ITR 541 · initial burden of proof · loan confirmations · rejection on suspicion · appellate remand · re-adducing evidence · Section 250 · Section 143(3) · genuineness of transactions · evidence opportunity

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 1961Section 1963Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

beneficial ownersection 14areasonable causesection 153adisallowance u/s 14atransfersection 144cprescribedcapital expenditurefinal assessment ordersection 37(1)company

Judgments citing Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 884/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ii. Asst. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of…

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 883/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ii. Asst. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of…

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvalla Range, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 882/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ii. Asst. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of…

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

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

ITA 785/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…); ii. Asst. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authoriti in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) iⅱ. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: M.J. Associates “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Bo…

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

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

ITA 784/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…); ii. Asst. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authoriti in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) iⅱ. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: M.J. Associates “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Bo…

Shailesh Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 54

…such investment and must be included while quantifying the exemption allowable under section 54. We have also considered the reliance placed by the AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. ITO [(2002) 122 Taxman 614 / 251 ITR 541]. While that case involved loan confirmations and production of creditors, the principle that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the claim should not be rejected merely on suspicion (particularly when not doubted by the lower authorities), holds true in the present case as well. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above findin…

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…considering the same Ld. DRP did not even cite the reason of persistent operating loss and switched to a new unjustifiable reason of government company to exclude TCIL. As noted by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of Rajesh Babhubhai Damania vs ITO, [2001] 251 ITR 541 at para 5 disapproved Hon'ble Tribunal's order in that case allowing one more innings. We pray that clear direction be given to include TCIL. 9. Ground No. 3 — It was submitted that Adtech and Zicom are not functionally comparable to trading segment of Appellant for reasons briefly stated in the ground-wise summary chart and further made good dur…

Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

ITA 412/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant D DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…cogent reasons to deviate in the present case by remanding these matters second time (effectively third time) for the benefit of party seeking it to fill-up gaps in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ‘Rajesh Babubhai Damania Vs CIT’ 251 ITR 541, and in ‘CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel’ reported at 168 ITR 472. Placing reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench in ‘Zuari Leasing & Finance Corpn. Ltd. Vs ITO’ reported in 112 ITD 205 (TM), we reiterate that, the appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. 12. In the a…

Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

ITA 411/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant D DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…cogent reasons to deviate in the present case by remanding these matters second time (effectively third time) for the benefit of party seeking it to fill-up gaps in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ‘Rajesh Babubhai Damania Vs CIT’ 251 ITR 541, and in ‘CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel’ reported at 168 ITR 472. Placing reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench in ‘Zuari Leasing & Finance Corpn. Ltd. Vs ITO’ reported in 112 ITD 205 (TM), we reiterate that, the appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. 12. In the a…

Nuovo Pignone International Srl, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 999/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 Nuovo Pignone International Versus Dcit, Circle 2(2)(2), Srl, 6Th Floor, Building No. 7A, International Taxation, Standard Chartered Building, New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabcg3212A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…el relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (ii). ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd., 73 ITD 125(TM)(Del); (iii). CIT vs. Harikishan Jethalal Patel, 168 ITR 4721(Guj) (iv). Rajesh Babubhai Damania vs. ITO, 251 ITR 541 (Guj); (v). Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 122 TTJ 577(SB)(Mum). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP, learned Departmental Representative submitted, the issue relating to existence of fixed place PE has been concluded in 9 favour of the Revenue. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

…the discharge of his office ought to confine himself. 23 26. Learned counsel Sri.Mayank Jain for the respondent / assessee further placed reliance on a decision in the case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2001) 251 ITR 541, wherein at para 7 it is held as under: “7. The Tribunal totally overlooked the assessment of evidence done by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dealt with the matter as if it was entertaining an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer. There was no question of giving "one more innings" to the Assessing Officer. T…

Smt Joyti Garg, Mandsour vs. ACIT Ratlam, Ratlam

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Jyoti Garg Acit, Ratlam Mandsaur बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agzpg9989M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…that under the circumstances giving second inning to the Department will be against the principles of natural justice. In support of this conclusion he relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harikishan Jethamal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Guj), CIT vs. M. K. Bros. (supra), Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar Jain vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 49 TTJ (All) (TM) 558 : (1994) 208 ITR 22 (AT) (All). The learned counsel further submitted that reliance by the Departmental Representative on the judgment of the…

Ninaidevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1787/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 115BSection 12ASection 2(24)(iia)

…Asstt. CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.) Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 48 (Gauhati) The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving 'one more innings' to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT[2001] 251 ITR 541/[2002] 122 Taxman 614 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel[1987] 168 ITR 472/33 Taxman 217 (Guj.)Remand not for the benefit of the party seeking it to fill up gaps. 16. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1996 Kar.55 at pages 63 & 64 held as under: "Where the par…

Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 1022/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishikaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Ward-14(2), Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Special Range-5, Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 271Section 92C

…g and this comparable itself is required to be excluded here by the coordinate bench itself. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Babubhai Damania vs Income Tax Officer 122 taxmann 614 (2002) (Gujarat) (251 ITR 541). He also submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of BC management services (supra) wherein this comparable company has been excluded from the comparability analysis. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Adm…

Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1481/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao & Sandeep S. Karhail, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 92C

…or a clear direction to exclude this company from the final set of comparables on the ground that multiple innings cannot be allowed to the tax authorities. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Babhubhai Damania reported in 251 ITR 541 (Guj) and also contended that this principle was applied in a series of decisions by this Tribunal. In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the breakup of some of the figures mentioned in pages 247 and 302 of the Paper Book were not provided. At this stage, the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant explained…

Ulo Systems Llc, Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…the determination of the period of stay in India. 20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed.” 5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideratio…

Ulo Systems Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…the determination of the period of stay in India. 20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed.” 5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideratio…

Ulo Systems Llc, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6018/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…the determination of the period of stay in India. 20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed.” 5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideratio…

Ulo Systems Llc, Gurgaon vs. ADIT Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…the determination of the period of stay in India. 20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed.” 5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideratio…

Ulo Systems Llc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5279/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…the determination of the period of stay in India. 20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed.” 5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideratio…