S.R. Koshti v. CIT

276 ITR 165High Court2005#414 most cited

What is S.R. Koshti v. CIT authority for?

Tax authorities have an obligation to act in accordance with law and assist assessees who are over-assessed due to mistake, misconception, or lack of proper instruction, ensuring only legitimate taxes are collected.

217

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.R. Koshti v. CIT · assessment procedure · over-assessment · assistance to assessee · correct tax collection · authorities under the Act

Also reported as

146 Taxmann 335

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18statement under section 132(4)section 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing S.R. Koshti v. CIT

Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 308/AHD/2020[206-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 307&308/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2, Anand Apartments 44, Ward-1(1)(2), Suvarnapuri Society Jetalpur Vadodara Road, Chikkuwadi, Vadodara-390007 [PAN No.AABCK4719Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: Both appeals filed by the assessee ar…

Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 307/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 307&308/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2, Anand Apartments 44, Ward-1(1)(2), Suvarnapuri Society Jetalpur Vadodara Road, Chikkuwadi, Vadodara-390007 [PAN No.AABCK4719Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: Both appeals filed by the assessee ar…

Roshaniben Tusharbhai Patel, Patan vs. The DCIT, CPC, Benglore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 44A

…as rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee at the time of hearing filed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT, 276 ITR 165. From the perusal of the said case laws, it can be seen that the assessee filed revised return of income and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that when the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and which has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Aura Securities Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 403, 404 Shilp Building, Vs Circle-1(1)(1), Cg Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380009 Pan : Aabcm 0602 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 21.09.2020 & The Solitary Ground Raised Therein Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee fr…

M/S Sms Aamy Tollways Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT
Section 153A

…3(1)(a) on the basis of revised return. The Hon’ble Court has also held that an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act cannot be equated with an assessment framed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. Considering the above decision, another decision namely S.R. Koshti Vs. CIT 276 ITR 165 and also decision of coordinate Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Kiran Infra Engineering Ltd., ld. CIT(A) ordered to consider the revised return and income shown therein. The department is in appeal before us. Same argument has 11 ITA537/JP/2019 SMS –AAMY TOLLWAYS PVT LTD. VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR been taken as mentioned in…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kostiv. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. 1TO [19701 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey[1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This…

Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2161/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2161/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, D.C.I.T, 33, New Chandranagar Society, Vs. Cpc, B/H Supath-Ii, Bangalore. Union Bank Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaatg7340R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 164

…ct is not an assessment and therefore the benefit of the proviso to section 12 AA of the Act cannot be granted. The learned DR in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the assessee being a trust was registered in the year 1998 as Public Trust with Charity commissioner, Ahmedabad under Mumbai Public Trust Act 1950…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan Sukumaran vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 1…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan Sukumaran vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 1…

The ITO, Ward-4, Morbi vs. M/S Raiyani Cotton Industries, Morbi

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

ITA 129/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No. 129/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: 07/07/2021
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 80G

…served as under; “The purpose of an assessment proceeding before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of the assessee in accordance with the law.” (b) Similarly, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of S.S. KOSHTI Vs. C/T(2005) 276 ITR 165 (GUJ), laid down the proposition that "The authorities under the act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or in not properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that on…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the follo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the follo…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the follo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the follo…

Jinesh (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

…. STATE OF KERALA', (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), 7 'CIT VS. MR.P.FIRM, MUAR', (1965) 56 ITR 67 9SC), 'BHANDARI METALS VS. SATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 2004 KAR 2025, 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRIMANIAM CIT', (2004) 269 ITR 1, 'S.R.KOSHTI VS. CIT', (2005) 276 ITR 165, 'CIT VS.SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND CO.', (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), 'CIT VS. CHAMANLAL MANGALDAS (1960) 39 ITR 8 (S), 'GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1997) 91 TAXMANN 351 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and t…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…