Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT

351 ITR 23High Court2013#5338 most cited

What is Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot allege a failure to disclose material facts if they did not advert to or utilize such material during the original assessment. The reasons for reopening an assessment cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits or oral submissions.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. DCIT · section 147 · true and full disclosure · material facts · reopening of assessment · reasons for reopening · affidavit · oral submissions · Assessing Officer · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

255 CTR 113

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 35ddsection 72asection 147(b)section 115jaasection 2(31)section 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 39section 54ecresulting companysection 115ja

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

…Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC): 78 DTR 153 (SC) b) CIT Vs Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 129 (SC): [2012] 79 DTR 82 (SC) c) Voltas Ltd. Vs ACIT [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom) d) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Dy.CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) e) Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT [2004] 267 ITR 161(Bom) No new Material f) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) g) CIT Vs Usha International Ltd.[2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB): 77 DTR 396 (Del)(FB) On merits Ground No.3: Issue related to claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(2) a) In the original assessment order enclosed i…

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.” 30. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. DCIT 351 ITR 23 dealt with the Explanation 1 to section 147 of the IT Act and observed as under: - “13. Mr Maratha appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently supported the re-opening of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 and submitted that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts w…

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.” 30. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. DCIT 351 ITR 23 dealt with the Explanation 1 to section 147 of the IT Act and observed as under: - “13. Mr Maratha appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently supported the re-opening of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 and submitted that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts w…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.” 30. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. DCIT 351 ITR 23 dealt with the Explanation 1 to section 147 of the IT Act and observed as under: - “13. Mr Maratha appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently supported the re-opening of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 and submitted that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts w…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.” 30. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. DCIT 351 ITR 23 dealt with the Explanation 1 to section 147 of the IT Act and observed as under: - “13. Mr Maratha appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently supported the re-opening of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 and submitted that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts w…

Viswanathan Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 292B

…he Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by issue of corrigendum or by filing the affidavit or by making oral submissions etc. as viewed in the judicial precedents such as Hindustan Lever vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom); NDTV System vs. ITO (2013) 255 CTR 113 (Bom) etc. When a statutory functionary makes order on certain grounds, it cannot be supplemented by fresh reason as observed Kakrala Krishna Murthy & Another vs. CIT 216 ITR 206 (AP). Thus, the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to t…

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2953/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 35D

…is concluded by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra).” [emphasis supplied] h. The Appellant wishes to place reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi)wherein it was held that even when no specific query has been raised and specific information which do not require any due diligence where placed at the time of original assessment proceedings then it would be clearly a case of full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary of assessment, then initiation of reassessment proceeding…

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2817/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 35D

…is concluded by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra).” [emphasis supplied] h. The Appellant wishes to place reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi)wherein it was held that even when no specific query has been raised and specific information which do not require any due diligence where placed at the time of original assessment proceedings then it would be clearly a case of full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary of assessment, then initiation of reassessment proceeding…

M/S Ifci Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2659/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 35D

…is concluded by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra).” [emphasis supplied] h. The Appellant wishes to place reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi)wherein it was held that even when no specific query has been raised and specific information which do not require any due diligence where placed at the time of original assessment proceedings then it would be clearly a case of full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary of assessment, then initiation of reassessment proceeding…

Ramotar Singh HUF, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Rewari

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

…tention to what factual, legal or other inferences can be drawn from already available primary facts disclosed by assessee. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT, 351 ITR 23 and various other decisions. 9.4 Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Ashrafi Devi in individual status for A.Y. 2009-10, vide ITA No.1869/Del/2013, order dated 26th September, 2014, he submitted that the Tribunal had only directed the AO to verify as to whether such long-term capital gain has been declared in the return…

M/S. Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-I(I), Indore

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

ITA 441/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR (Del) CIT v/s Orient Craft Ltd (354 ITR 536) (Del) DIT vs. Rolls Royee Industrial Power India Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi High Court) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and OTR 351 ITR 23 Delhi High Court . Rubamin Ltd. Vis. Love Kumar (253 ITR 432) (Guj.) Ashwamegh Co-operative Housing Society vis. DCIT (353 Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd ITA No.441/Ind/2019 & ITA No.503/Ind/2018 ITR 413) (Guj.) Metal Alloys Corporation v/s. ACIT (350 ITR 245) (Guj.) Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vis. CIT (348 ITR page 325) (Mumbai) NDT Systems vis…

M/S Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (5), Indore

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

ITA 503/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR (Del) CIT v/s Orient Craft Ltd (354 ITR 536) (Del) DIT vs. Rolls Royee Industrial Power India Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi High Court) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and OTR 351 ITR 23 Delhi High Court . Rubamin Ltd. Vis. Love Kumar (253 ITR 432) (Guj.) Ashwamegh Co-operative Housing Society vis. DCIT (353 Indore Paraspar Sahakari Bank Ltd ITA No.441/Ind/2019 & ITA No.503/Ind/2018 ITR 413) (Guj.) Metal Alloys Corporation v/s. ACIT (350 ITR 245) (Guj.) Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vis. CIT (348 ITR page 325) (Mumbai) NDT Systems vis…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…d vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing officer during the course of original assessment proce…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…d vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing officer during the course of original assessment proce…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…d vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing officer during the course of original assessment proce…

M/S. Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM ITA No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 ITA No. 5164/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 5554/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Halcrow Group Ltd., Vs ADIT, R-27, 2nd Floor, Pratap Market, International Taxation, Jangpura-B, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH7866E Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. Revenue by : Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.0 7.2018 ORDER Per…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…1. Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC). 2. Deputy CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 129 (SC). 3. Voltas Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom). 4. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi). 5. Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. vs. CIT AND ANOTHER [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) 29. WEL INTERTRADE…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…ies (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) 9. 3i Infotech Ltd v CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) 10. ACIT v ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd [2002] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 11. Bedmutha Industries Ltd v DCIT [2013] 87 DTR 305 (Bom) 12. Titanor Components Ltd v ACIT [2012] 342 ITR 183 (Bom) 13. Asian Paints Ltd v DCIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 14. Hindustan Lever Ltd v R B Wadkar, ITO [2004…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Kabra & Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6965/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6965/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Acit Circle – 12(3), M/S Kabra & Associates, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 2 Nd Floor, Jash Chambers, V. Aayakar Bhavan, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai 400 023. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaffk2000F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…merely a change of opinion. The assessee relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (Affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561 (SC)). 2. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT,(2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 3. NDT Systems v. ITO, 255 CTR 113 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2014 7 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee on the ground that the A.O. clearly recorded that the assessee has deducted TDS on amount of Rs. 1,29,63,647/- paid for contractors , professionals and brokerage in the first eleven months of the financial year 2006-07 and tax deducted at source on the said payme…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…statutory document and has certain sanctity and cannot be considered to be a ordinary piece of evidence which could not have been noticed by the AO with due diligence. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (351 ITR 23) 2. 31 Infotech Ltd. vs. CIT (329 ITR 257) 8 ITA No.3417/M/2009, CO No.201/M/2012 & ITA No.3326/M/2009 M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (formerly known as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) 10. The Ld. Sr. Counsel referring to the observations made by the AO in the original assessment order submitted, a reading of the assessment order would reveal that the…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT (351 ITR 23) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax