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

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110024. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aqkps8457P Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-7, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chowdhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “जी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ. बी आर आर कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.419/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110024. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AQKPS8457P vs The DCIT, Central Circle-7, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. H.K.Chowdhary, CIT DR स…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Additional Commissioner Vs. M/s. Tata Communications of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly known as 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 TH M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACV2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/s. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known as Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3156/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…is open to the assessee 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 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…s and provisions of law and not on the basis of conduct of the assessee. This issue is not res-integra. Immediate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessmen…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…s and provisions of law and not on the basis of conduct of the assessee. This issue is not res-integra. Immediate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessmen…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…s and provisions of law and not on the basis of conduct of the assessee. This issue is not res-integra. Immediate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessmen…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…s and provisions of law and not on the basis of conduct of the assessee. This issue is not res-integra. Immediate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessmen…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemical Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…s and provisions of law and not on the basis of conduct of the assessee. This issue is not res-integra. Immediate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessmen…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.)
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1995-96 Rina S. Mehta, DCIT, CC-4(1), 32, Madhuli Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Dr. A.B. Road, M.K. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ABNPM 8219R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Shri Dhaval Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.) Date of Hearing : 09.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been p…

Naozer Bejon Baldawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  Judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P. V. Doshi v. CIT (113 ITR 22)  Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (194 ITR 548)  Order of Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (88 taxrnann.com 439)  Judgment of tha Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5)  Order of Agra Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. and Ann v. ITO fcv'A.Ys. 2010-11 a…

Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aligarh

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Income-tax (2013) 33 taxmann.com 670 (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) 2. CIT, Central-I, Mumbai Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders 4 (2012) 23 taxmann.com 23 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court) 3. Inventors Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court) 4. E. Jewellery Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 20(3)-1, Mumbai (2011) 9 taxmann.com 28 (Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench `H’) 5. Nandlal Sachdeva Vs. Income-tax Officer (2012) 20 taxmann.com 224 (Hon’ble ITAT Indore Bench) 6. Income Tax Officer Vs. XS Cad India (P) Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 82 (Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench`G’) 7.…

M/S. Omega Biotech Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vinit Kumar Bindal, CA & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ent proceedings before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation, 8 ITA No.2570/Del./2015 (Omega Biotech Ltd.) when in the first round, the Tribunal had remanded the order for limited purpose?" 5. In the matter of investments Corp. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom) (556) wherein paragraph 23 to 28 it was held as under :- “23. We, therefore, hold that a ground by which the jurisdiction to make assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time 24. This, however, does not solve the problem before us. All the cases referred to by us above are the cases dealing with same…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. Market Creators Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 2Section 201(1)Section 40

…r an adhoc disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) can be made at all or not is something which goes to the root of the matter, and in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited vs. CIT [(1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom)] such issues can be raised at any point of time. 10. As the grievance of the assessee is upheld for the above short reason, we see no need to address ourselves to other aspects of the matter. 17. In parity with the view taken in above said ITAT order, we allow ground of the assessee. 18. In the result, we direct the A.O. to delete the ad…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Magic Software Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-11(1), Pune अपीलाथ"/Appellant ….

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chhabra & Ms. Shilpa SFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…contention: " Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirbheram Daluram [(1997)139 CTR (SC) 484] " Jute of Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [(1990)88CTR(SC)66] " Inventors Industrial Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992)194 ITR 548 (Bom.)] " CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [( 1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)] " CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1998] 97 Taxman 7 (Karnataka)) " Indu Arts vs. ACIT ([2017] 88 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi - Trib.)) In the light of above judicial precedents, the Respondent humbly requests the Hon'ble bench to reject E- Infochips Limited from the final set of com…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is sufficient irrespective of the fact that it in the case of the person searched capacity of the officer of the…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is sufficient irrespective of the fact that it in the case of the person searched capacity of the officer of the…

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…le which means that it is to be exercised in really exceptional circumstances. Of course, it has to exercised in judicious manner as observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Born). The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: " …………….The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as sett{ed. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these au…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…le which means that it is to be exercised in really exceptional circumstances. Of course, it has to exercised in judicious manner as observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Born). The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: " …………….The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as sett{ed. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these au…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…le which means that it is to be exercised in really exceptional circumstances. Of course, it has to exercised in judicious manner as observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Born). The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: " …………….The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as sett{ed. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these au…

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…le which means that it is to be exercised in really exceptional circumstances. Of course, it has to exercised in judicious manner as observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Born). The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: " …………….The law in this regard is, thus, to be taken as sett{ed. The powers of the first appellate authority, whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are coterminous with those of the Income-tax Officer, subject to the limit that these au…