Siksha v. CIT

194 ITR 548High Court1992#960 most cited

What is Siksha v. CIT authority for?

Tribunals should consider questions of law arising from facts on record, even if raised for the first time, if the issue is jurisdictional and requires no further fact-finding.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Siksha v. CIT · 194 ITR 548 · additional ground · jurisdictional issue · question of law · facts on record · NTPC Ltd. v. CIT · tribunal powers · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 120(4)(b)section 2(7a)closely held companyaccumulated profitsrelated party transactionsection 120section 292bsection 292section 260section 260aassistant director

Judgments citing Siksha v. CIT

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 20/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 19/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 18/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2913/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2912/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2911/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2910/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2909/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2908/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional ground No. 1, 2 and 4 have not been pressed by the assessee. Hence these grounds are not being considered by us for admission thereof. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties. The additional ground No.3 raised by the assessee is purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter. In Nati…

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…to set up the Question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT 26 Shri Anil Nachrani 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings before the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal. 8.10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion…

Jammat-E-Islami Hind, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: Na Jammat-E-Islami Hind, Vs Cit (Exemptions), D-321, Dawat Nagar, New Delhi. Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaatj3324L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 148Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: NA Jammat-E-Islami Hind, Vs CIT (Exemptions), D-321, Dawat Nagar, New Delhi. Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 110 025. PAN: AAATJ3324L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 09.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.03.2023…

DCIT, CC- 1, Faridabad vs. Sadjyoti Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection

ITA 3854/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…1 ITA no. 3854/Del/2017 & CO no. 31/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2006-07 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vs M/s sadjyoti Traders Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. 5, Village Tajpur, Badarpur, New Delhi. PAN- AAICS7343F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No. 31/Del/2021 ( In ITA No. 3854/DEL/2017) Asstt. Yr: 2006-07 M/s sadjyoti Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, 5, Village Tajpur, Badarpur, Faridabad. New Delhi. PAN- AAICS7343F Cross objector RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh G…

Magna Automations Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1109/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaa.Y. 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2019-20 M/s Magna Automations Limited, Vs DCIT, Circle-16(1), B-9, Ground Floor, D/S Quarters, New Delhi. West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110048 PAN- AAACM0255E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Yudhister Mehani, CA Department represented by Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.10.2023 13.10.2023 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 16.02.2023, for the assessmen…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Spirit Global Construction Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/191/2018HC Delhi18 Jul 2023

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147

…of jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking Section 148/147 of the Act based on the record available with the Tribunal. [See CIT v Expeditors International India (P) Ltd. (2012) 205 taxman 107 (Delhi) (Mag.), Inventors Industrial Corpn. Ltd. v CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bombay), Abdul Majid v Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow (2006) 153 taxman 131 (Allahabad), CIT v Trilokchand Swaroop Chand (1998) 98 taxman 82 (MP)]. 17.3 Section 292B would have no application, given the fact that the mistake made by the AO, while referring to a deleted provision, was inextricably linked to the observation made by hi…

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…na Tiwari Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings before the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal. 8.10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion…

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1670/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1670/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Jatinder Pal Singh, vs. DCIT, C/o D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, Central Circle 18, New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. (PAN : ALPPS9874G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date of Order : 22.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the or…

Mes. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 33(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2251/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…assessment is bad in law. In support of his contention learned AR placed reliance on following case laws : • PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd. (422 ITR 337) • CIT Vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. (325 ITR 285) • Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (194 ITR 548) • Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (390 ITR 464) 4 Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi 7. The learned AR then advanced his arguments on merits. He submitted that the assessee has sold 1.20 lakhs shares for a consideration of Rs. 5.45 crores and earned long term capital gains of Rs. 5.18 crores. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has purc…

Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2359/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69ASection 6A

…t. It is submitted that these may be considered while disposing the appeal. Further, at the time of hearing, reliance was also placed by the Assessee's Counsel on judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Annexure 4 hereto) with leave to file a copy of the same later. In that case, assessee had challenged validity of reassessment proceedings in remand proceedings where the original order passed by the CIT(A) remanding the matter to the AO had become final. To the submission urged by the Revenue before the High Court that such raising of additiona…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3740/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ound raised are too late in the day as original order of assessment has been upheld by Tribunal and order of Tribunal has acquired finality overlooks the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant: a) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT b) 194 ITR 548 (Born) Inventors Industrial Corpn. Vs. CIT c) 281 ITR 366 (All) Abdul Majid vs. CIT d) 21 SOT 440 (Kol) Pearless Ge. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT e) 127 ITD 160™ (Chennai) Hemal Knitting Industries vs. JCIT f) ITA No. 2638/2005 (Kar) dated 5.4.2010 CIT v Mis PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has f…

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ound raised are too late in the day as original order of assessment has been upheld by Tribunal and order of Tribunal has acquired finality overlooks the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant: a) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT b) 194 ITR 548 (Born) Inventors Industrial Corpn. Vs. CIT c) 281 ITR 366 (All) Abdul Majid vs. CIT d) 21 SOT 440 (Kol) Pearless Ge. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT e) 127 ITD 160™ (Chennai) Hemal Knitting Industries vs. JCIT f) ITA No. 2638/2005 (Kar) dated 5.4.2010 CIT v Mis PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has f…