How many judgments cite United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT?

309 judgments on BharatTax cite United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (258 ITR 317), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 151, Section 153A, Section 153D.

United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 317High Court2002#249 most cited

What is United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on general or vague information lacking a specific link to the assessee's transaction, and requires the Assessing Officer to apply an independent mind and form a 'reason to believe' based on reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion.

309

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Electrical Co. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment validity · vague information · bogus transactions · independent application of mind · escaped assessment

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 775

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 151 Section 153A Section 153D Section 132 Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 10(31a)section 100 section 76 section 142(2c)section 153b(1)(b)section 144ba section 153b(1)rectification under section 154 section 158bc section 2(22)section 206c section 2(22)(e)

Judgments citing United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d partially some material facts relevant for assessment 13 Disha N. Lalwani (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pra…

R.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Punjab vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…address was of SANGRUR PUNJAB. Hence, cannot be held as per law Nothing was observed by Add I CIT that how an assessee of Punjab can be issued a notice by ITO (Atul Jain and Vinita Jain 299 ITR 383 of 2007 DHC) United Electricals compnay (P) LTD Vs CIT (2002 258 ITR 317 del) 8. AO's Order dated 07.12.20011 :PARA 2 of page 3 of the order of AO CIT Vs Chetan Gupta (JTA No 72 of 2014 datedl5.09.2015) CIT Vs Atlanta Capital (P) Ltd (ITA No 665 & 666 2015 DHC).” (C-1). At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made detailed oral submissions in addition to the aforesaid written submissions a…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. I & E Trade Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 798/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.798/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Acit -12(2)(2), M/S I&E Trade बनाम/ Room No. 363, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., V. 3 Rd Floor,, 10 Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shree Puri Tower, M.K. Road, Soniwadi Shimpoli Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct9239N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai,DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bmitted that there is no contrary evidence in possession of the AO which could prove in-genuineness of such expenditure. The assessee relied on the following case laws:- ITA 798/Mum/2015 & 8 C.O. No. 140/Mum/2016 1) United Electrical Company v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) 2) Sarthak Securities Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR110 (De!) 3) Assam Tea Company v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 85 (Asr) (SB) . 4) Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) 5) Smt. Kusumlata Bansal v. DClT (2008) 10 DTR (Ahd.)(Trib.)82 6) Virendra Kumar Agrawal v. ITO (2011) 132 ITD 140 (Mum) 7) ITO vs. Permanand 25 SO…

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

…R 603 (Bom) 16. Johri Lal (HUF) v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439 (SC) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 17. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 18. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd v ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 (Del) 19. United Electrical Co (P) Ltd v CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Del) 20. German Remedies Ltd v DCIT [2006] 287 ITR 494 (Bom) The Ld. AR of the assessee filed the copy of all the decisions in the form of legal Paper Book. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also perused documents submitted before us in the form of PB (documents)…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…to disclose fully and partially some material facts relevant for assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Praf…

Miss Himshika, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result both the appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 2408/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Attps 0634 C Ay: 2005-06 Ms. Himshika Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e SMC-2 Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in ITA 2521/Del/2015 for the A.Y. 2005-06 order dt. 6th November, 2015 held that the reopening is bad in law by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of United Health Care P.Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) (d) The reopening is bad in law as the proceedings were initiated only on the basis of certain information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, without independent verification as well as application of mind. That the prima facie correctness of the information was not verified by the A.O. (e) In the statement recorded from Shri Pa…

Miss Mamta Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result both the appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 2407/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4235/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4235/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp7081P Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.1 1,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.8,24,270/-Under The Head Income From House Property.” 2 Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd. 3. Vide Ground No. 1, The Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Validity Of The Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 4235/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/s Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP7081P Assessee by : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)

…ing the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax has been made available. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. S. Goenka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. – (2015) 64 Taxman.com 313 (SC); ii) United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 258 ITR 317 (Del.); iii) Chuganal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. – 79 ITR 603 (SC); iv) Kansal Fincap Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 2661 & 2662/D/2013) – Delhi ITAT D Bench dated 31.08.2015); v ) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chaliha & Ors – 79 ITR 603 (SC); vi) Arjun Singh & Ors. Vs. ADIT – 246 ITR 363 (MP); vii) ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. – ITA No. 4122/Del/2009 – (D…

M/S. Blossom Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 186/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ase on sum vague information and not on his application of mind, hence the re-opening is void and the assessment should be quashed. The same was held in: 1. CIT vs. Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Del) 2. United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del) 3. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO 195 Taxmann 262 (Del) 4. Capricon Shopping Complex vs. ITO 218 ITR 721 (Ker) 5. C. Vasanthlal & Co. vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) 6. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) e. Taking all the above submissions together the issue of notice u/s 148 is void and without jurisdiction, hence the ord…

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 151

…Act.” 4 A.Y. 2005-06 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 5.1. Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s Kansal Fincap Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of United Electrical Co.P.Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) reported in 258 ITR 317 (Del) and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chalina & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (S.C.) have been applied, I hold that the reopening is bad in law, for the reason that the ACIT has granted approval with a simple mere “yes”. Such a remark cannot be considered as approval with application of mind. The…

Ajay Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 151

…the Act.” 4 A.Y. 2005-06 Ajay Kumar Gupta 5.1. Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s Kansal Fincap Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of United Electrical Co.P.Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) reported in 258 ITR 317 (Del) and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chalina & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (S.C.) have been applied, I hold that the reopening is bad in law, for the reason that the ACIT has granted approval with a simple mere “yes”. Such a remark cannot be considered as approval with application of mind. The…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Brij Kishor Kochar, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3826/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3826/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09)

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…re the Investigation cell, then the above reasons cannot be held to be based on tangible materials so as to constitute a “reason to believe”. Mu view gets supported by the orders passed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. 258 ITR 317 (Del) and Orient Craft Ltd ITA N. 555/2012 order 12th December 2012. The AO should have brought out a comparable case of selling of property in the same building by the builder to some other person at higher rate. The property value in Greater Noida is going low for so many years as the population of the area is not increasing and it is about 40…

M/S. Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5128/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1) 144/2, Ans House, Ashram, Mathura New Delhi Road, New Delhi - 110 014 (Pan: Aaccb6652Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234

…a satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction. 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 258 ITR 317 has held that “the proviso to sub- section (1) of section151of the Act provides that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer con…

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…355 ITR 320 (Kar) Proposition 6: Approval granted by CIT is mechanical approval and is without application of mind and therefore, order u/s 142(2A) is unsustainable i) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del) ii) United Electricals Co. (P) Ltd. v CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT 300 ITR 403 (SC”) iii) 16 The learned special counsel Shri Dilip Shivpuri for the revenue on the other hand contended that submissions of the appellant are not maintainable. It was contended that order u/s 142(2A) of the Act was not an appealable order and therefore any submission to the effect that order u/s 142…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S G.A. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Cross Objection stands allowed and

ITA 5311/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddyassessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Ga Buildcon Private Ward 12(1), Cr Building, Ltd., Room No. 205, Wadhwa New Delhi Complex, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 (Pan: Aaacg9109R) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 42/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 5311/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S Ga Buildcon Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Rra Taxindia, Ward 12(1), New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. M/S GA BUILDCON PRIVATE WARD 12(1), CR BUILDING, Ltd., ROOM NO. 205, WADHWA NEW DELHI COMPLEX, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-92 (PAN: AAACG9109R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 42/Del/2014 (IN ITA NO. 5311/DEL/2013) Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S GA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O RRA TAXINDIA, WARD 12(1), NEW DELHI D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) De…

Damayanti Ramesh Gada, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3871/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Me, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee Has Made Two Fold Arguments. Firstly, According To Him, The Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 147/148 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Was Bad In Law And, Therefore, The Impugned Assessment Was Liable To Be Quashed. Secondly, It Has Been Also Contended That On Facts, The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Not Sustainable.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 10 Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction. 12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 258 ITR 317 has held that “the proviso to sub-section (1) of section151of the Act provides that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer concerne…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of the AO forwarded to him, then certainly this was not in confirmatory with the legal requirement explained by the Hon'ble 5 Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in various decisions including the decision in the case of United Electrical Co. Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 [Del]. The ld. Counsel also placed copy of reasons recorded by the AO for A.Y 2002-03 submitted that in the reasons recorded or this year, the AO has not obtained any sanction for initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, the proceedings and notice deserve to be quashed and the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erre…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68