Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 139, Section 68.

Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer

Q: How many judgments cite Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer?

74 judgments on BharatTax cite Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer (308 ITR 22), spanning 2010 to 2026.

308 ITR 22High Court2009#1533 most cited

What is Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147 after four years unless the income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Furthermore, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · change of opinion · failure to disclose material facts · reassessment beyond four years · full and true disclosure · income escaping assessment · Kelvinator principle

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 139 Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 142

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessment first proviso to section 147 true and full disclosure beyond four years full and true disclosure kelvinator within four years mere change of opinion income escaping assessment live link change of opinion reopening of assessment

Judgments citing Well Intertrade (P) Ltd., & Another v. Income Tax Officer

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…fic failure on the part of assessee in fully and truly disclosing material facts in relation to such claim, initiation of reassessment is bad in law: - Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del.) - Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del.) P a g e | 7 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del.) - CIT v. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del.) - Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT: [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) - Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v. ITO: [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bom.) - Kalpataru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd v. ITO: [20…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…ening has been made without application of mind and independent verification of facts. Reliance placed on the following decisions: (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 308 ITR 38( Del) (ii) Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) (iv) JSRS Udyog Ltd. and Anr v. ITO 313 321 (Del) (v) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Assistant CIT & Anr (2008) 305 ITR 339(Mad) (vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. V. DCIT and others 301ITR 407 (Bom) (vii) Mimson textile Engineering Industries Ltd. (2013) 83 DTR 132 (Guj) (viii) Bombay Stock Exchange ltd. v. DDIT (2014) 361 ITR 160 (Bom) (ix) Pr.…

ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

…ated purely on the basis of change of opinion, which is impermissible under law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on following decisions: - (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del); (ii) Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del); & (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. Per contra, the ld. DR opposing Cross Objections filed written submissions, the same are reproduced herein below: “1. Most respectfully it is submitted that Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…ons there should have been recorded that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal followed the decisions of this Court in Wel Inter Trade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO[2009] 308 ITR 22/178 Taxman 27 and Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co v. CIT[2009] 308 ITR 38/175 Taxman 262 wherein this Court held that in situations where the reasons did not even contain and allegations that the escapement of the income had been occasioned by failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment,…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…4 (Del)  D. T. and T. D. C. Ltd: 324 ITR 234 (Del)  Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del)  CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd: 171 Taxman 379 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd v. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del)  Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd: 343 ITR 141 (Del)  CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF): 306 ITR 173 (Del. HC) 6.5 Our attention was invited to the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee to demonstrate that the said transaction was, in fact, disclosed as a part of the closing stock [page 65 r.w. Pg 68 of PB]. In other words, the amount was deb…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…ents beyond a period of four years for already assessed assessments. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) Duli Chand Singhania vs ACIT (P&H HC) reported in 269 ITR 192 (Pages 1 to 10 of PB-IV). ii) WelIntertrade (P) Ltd. vs ITO (Delhi HC) reported in 308 ITR 22 (Pages 11 to 14 of PB - IV). iii) Atma Ram Properties PVt. Ltd. vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) reported in 343 ITR 141 (Pages 42 to 55 of PB-IV). iv) CIT vs Suren International P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 357 ITR 24 (Pages 56 to 67 of PB-IV). v) PCIT vs DSC Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA No. 546/2019 (Pages 108 to 119 of PB - IV). Proposition 3: Reopening…

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 522/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…ed assessment on account of the assessee failing to make returns under Section 139 or on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose, fully and truly, the necessary material facts. This Court in the case of Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22/178 Taxman 27 and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38/ [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Del) held that it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment already done beyond the period of four years unless the income has escaped assessment on account of failure, on the part of the assessee, to disclose all the mat…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…ded to the effect that escapement of income, if any, is on account of the 'failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to its assessment, as has been held in the following decisions: Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd.: [2008] 171 Taxman 379 (Del) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CTT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del) CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) 31. It is further submitted th…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

ACIT,CORPORATE CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment, notice under s. 148 issued beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under proviso to s. 147, hence without jurisdiction " Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (CLC 99-105). "Reassessment-Full and true disclosure-Notice after expiry of four years- Petitioner had admittedly filed its return for the relevant assessment year-In the reasons recorded by the A0 for reopening the assessment there is no whisper that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment…

SHAHNAZ HUSAIN,DELHI vs. JCIT SPECIAL RANGE -10, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shahnaz Husain, vs. JCIT Special Range-10, W-61, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi - 110048 (PAN : AABPH4011P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/NFAC…

SHAHNAZ HUSAIN,DELHI vs. JCIT SPECIAL RANGE -10, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/IND/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ator of India Ltd. MANU/SC/0047/2010/[2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 (SC). (ii) CIT v. Suren International (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 398/[2014] 225 Taxman 88 (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 24 (Delhi) (iii) Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 178 Taxman 27/308 ITR 22 (Delhi). 20. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. According to us, no substantial question of law arises, in the present appeal, for our consideration. 21. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” [Emphasis supplied] (b) Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. DCIT (2017) 88…

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…the 11 ITA. 672/Del/2018 Motorola Solutions India account of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts relating to its assessment. The above said view is supported by following decisions:- • Wei Inter trade (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) • CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. [2008]171 Taxman 379 (Del) • Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT: [2008] 308 ITR 38 (Del) • Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2011] 343 ITR 141 (Del) • CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) • Best Cyber city India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: [2019] 414 ITR 385 (De…

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…iction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above.” Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Wel Intertrade Private Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 18(3) (2009) 308 ITR 22 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as in the “reasons to believe” there was not even a whisper of any allegation that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, therefore, in absence of such finding which wa…

SRI. H.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…in the case of ChhugamalRajpalVs. S.P.Chaliha and other, reported in 79 ITR 603. vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO & Others, reported in 130 ITR 1. vii) M/s. WEL Intertrade (P) Ltd and Another Vs. ITO, reported in 308 ITR 22(Delhi). viii)CIT Vs. Dr. N. TippaSetty in ITA No. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002, reported in 322 ITR 525 (Karn), wherein all the decisions have been considered and held that there is no reason to believe. ix) In view of the foregoing decisions of various Courts the appellant wishes to submit that the learned Assessing officer did not had any reason to be…

SRI. M.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1424/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(1)Section 153CSection 68

…itted that similar view has been taken in following cases and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. i. CIT vs DCM Ltd. 24 DTR 72 (Del.), ii. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs CIT and Anr., 308 ITR 38 (Del.), iii. Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del.) iv. CIT vs Purolator India Limited 343 ITR 0155 (Del.) and v. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 203 Taxman 0408 (Del.) 11. Referring to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GM Overseas vs ACIT in ITA No.1891/Del/2020, dated 21.03.2022, he submitted that the reassessment proceeding has been quashed on fai…

GM OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…s:- 8 (i) CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.271/2012 (Del), order dated 11.02.2013; (ii) CIT vs DCM Ltd., 24 DTR 72 (Del); (iii) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr., 308 ITR 38; (iv) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del); (v) CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd., 343 ITR 0155 (Del); BLB Limited vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 0129 (Del); (vi) JSRS Udyog Limited & Another vs. ITO, 313 ITR 321 (Del); and (vii) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 203 Taxman 408 (Del). 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NDTV vs. DCIT, reported in 424 ITR 607…

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4