← All Phrases

“reason to believe”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1474,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for reason to believe is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reason to believe

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Judgments citing reason to believe

Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4824/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D. R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

without appreciating the fact that there was a complete absence of application of independent mind of learned AO while recording the reason to believe which procrastinate him to reopen the assessment under section 147. 2.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... reopening made by Learned AO of completed assessment only based on the information which may be a reason to suspect but not a reason to believe. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 2,73,631/- made

Cap Cab India Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4478/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Cap Cab India Ltd., Vs. Ito 82 B Madhuban Enclave, Ward – 5(3) Near Madipur Metro Station New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaccc 1016 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachin Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

null and void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled, inter alia, because: (a) The Ld. AO had no ‘reason to believe’ to initiate the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the proceedings were initiated on highly misconceived grounds, in the nature of pretence and without any justification

Dove Consultants Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1197/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 69

erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that assessee is not supplied valid reasons to believe along with approval if any before completion of assessment proceedings without which entire proceedings are void ab initio; 1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... assessment order and just because proprietor of said concern did not appear in response to summons before investgationwing cant give rise to valid reasons to believe as at best it can be reason to suspect only and without reasons to believe entire proceedings are void ab initio (Refer ground

Anirudh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8670/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Anirudh Kumar, Vs. Ito, D-1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-32(5), Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaipk1426A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Lalita Krishnamurthy, Ca & Ms Himani Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Ms Lalita Krishnamurthy, CA &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

under:- From above it is clear that this issue could not be examined for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.14,54,400/- for A.Y. 6 2008-09 has escaped assessment in terms of Section ... under:- From above it is clear that this issue could not be examined for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.14,54,400/- for A.Y. 7 2008-09 has escaped assessment in terms of Section

William E Connor & Associates Ltd. India Liaison Office, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 5575/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 147Section 148Section 234B

shows that the CIT(A) at para 7.4 and 7.5 has held as under :- “7.4 I find that the AO in his reasons to believe did not specify the quantum of income (even in broad terms), that he had reason to believe, had escaped assessment. 7.5 The AO’s action

Interglobal Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 148/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

other income is Rs. 1 1,02,000/After debiting various expenses, the net income. shown at Rs. 14,95,790/-. Basis of reason to believe alongwith quantum of income escaped: Taking into account above noted facts and information, I have reason to believe that income ... whether within or beyond four years. 6.1 Supervening these two requirements in the alternative, the initial condition is that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income. The first requirement regarding information is now dropped by 1989 amendment and therefore for reopening of assessment within

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

Year 2007- 08. from Shri Surendra Kumar Jain group cases, who is an entry provider. 2. Therefore, in view of above. 1 have reason to believe that the assesses has failed to disclose fully and truly material facts, and hence income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- as discussed above ... Asstt. Year 2009-10, from Shri Surendra Kumar Jain group cases, who is entry provider. 2. In view of above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to lax amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- and any other income which subsequently comes to notice has escaped assessment for assessment year

Nitin Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(4), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3147/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment at the time of recording of reasons as there was no cogent or definite material on record in support of his reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. 1.2. That CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has solely relied on the vague ... officer erred in law in initiating the assessment proceedings under camouflage of section 147 of the Act without having any bonafide or definite ‘reason to believe’ that certain income has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration as contemplated under section 147, as the basis of addition made

Nitin Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(4), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3146/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment at the time of recording of reasons as there was no cogent or definite material on record in support of his reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. 1.2. That CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has solely relied on the vague ... officer erred in law in initiating the assessment proceedings under camouflage of section 147 of the Act without having any bonafide or definite ‘reason to believe’ that certain income has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration as contemplated under section 147, as the basis of addition made

Nitin Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(4), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3145/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment at the time of recording of reasons as there was no cogent or definite material on record in support of his reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. 1.2. That CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has solely relied on the vague ... officer erred in law in initiating the assessment proceedings under camouflage of section 147 of the Act without having any bonafide or definite ‘reason to believe’ that certain income has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration as contemplated under section 147, as the basis of addition made

Shri Anil Nanda, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3318/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 246

satisfaction of the AO is not his satisfaction, but, borrowed satisfaction. h) Further, it is a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 5. However, the AO rejected all the objections raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Rejecting the various explanations given ... incomplete information as indicated in the reasons, which could have led the AO to have reasons to suspect, but, not reasons to believe. However, the reasons recorded by the AO do not show that he merely suspected that income has escaped assessment. Rather, the AO was fully aware about

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. It has been held that where there is non-application of mind by the AO, it cannot be said to have reason to believe so as to justify reopening of the assessment. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian ... reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) has quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded by the AO failed to reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court from paras 19 to 38 read as under

Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(2) (Now Ward-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Annexure. In view of the specific information received as above from Investigation Wing of TT Department, New Delhi, I have sufficient reason to believe that the assessee company M/s. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. has indulged in receiving accommodation entries and the total amount of payment received by the assessee ... other source of the assessee company, which has not been offered to tax by the assessee in is return filed. Accordingly, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 31,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the assessee company has understated its returned income

DCIT, Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed and appeal of the ld AO for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 5682/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 2Nd Floor, 30, Community Centre, Central Circle-19, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabca0250D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd, 2Nd Floor, 30, Community Centre, Circle-1(1), New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aabca0250D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Tashi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

expenditure to be paid by the assessee and therefore, the arguments of the assessee is not convincing. He held that there is no reason to believe that the above interest income is inextricably linked with the activity of the construction work in progress for construction of hotel . Thus, he confirmed

Sjm International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(20, New Delhi

ITA 3762/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

facts and circumstances of the case the AO has failed to appreciate that for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 there must be reason to believe and the jurisdiction cannot be assumed for scrutinising the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 9. Without prejudice to the above it is settled ... assessee company needs to be re-opened, as the above entries has been obtained through the entry operator. I, therefore, have reasons to believe that this amount of 50,00,000/- represents income of the assessee chargeable to tax and which has escaped assessment

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6229/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 4

intermediary companies used by Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta for providing accommodation entries as admitted by Shri Aseem Gupta. I, therefore, have reasons to believe that this amount of Rs.8,60,27,610/- represents income of the assessee chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2008-09. The necessary ... eyes of law or in the facts of the present case. Language of provisions of section 147 which provides:- “If the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

beneficiary of the accommodation entries provided by Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal or his associated entities in different layers. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: As per enquiries made by investigation wing of the department and the undersigned from the system and the material ... available in this case 1 have reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment which has been sufficiently demonstrated. Consequently. 1 have reasons to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for A.Y. 2011-12 and income has escaped assessment due to failure on part

Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1044/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

even on 26.03.2005 itself. However, the order in writing was issued on 30.03.2005. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the appellant company and M/s KPL, who must be keen to start generation of power from the said newly built captive power plant immediately, may not have

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

even on 26.03.2005 itself. However, the order in writing was issued on 30.03.2005. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the appellant company and M/s KPL, who must be keen to start generation of power from the said newly built captive power plant immediately, may not have

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 4166/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

even on 26.03.2005 itself. However, the order in writing was issued on 30.03.2005. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the appellant company and M/s KPL, who must be keen to start generation of power from the said newly built captive power plant immediately, may not have