← All Phrases

“Income-tax Officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(25) / Section 1175,006 judgments

The decision most relied on for Income-tax Officer is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Income-tax Officer

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer

Dentsply India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 752/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4195/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

M/S. Alankar Jewellers, Betul vs. DCIT Itarsi, Itarsi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

confer such power to examine a person on oath. the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A. section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables ... which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law ... Therefore, the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value and the Income-tax Officer was well aware of this. (emphasis supplied)" 15. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent--if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot

ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Dlehi vs. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2608/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

have found a place in the cash book, but in the ledger account through journal entries. There is another self- contradiction in the Income-tax Officer's finding that, if there was CO No.121/Del/2018 no real cash entry on the credit side of the cash book, but merely a notional

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the Income-tax Officer and which is not disclosed either in the returns filed by the assessee or in the assessment order, and, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot travel ... restricted to the subject-matter of assessment or the sources of income which have been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of the taxability of the assessee. It was argued by Mr. Vishwanath Iyer on behalf of the appellant that

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

ITA 5180/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 18.10.2016 for assessment year 2009-10 wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of Income-Tax Officer, Ward : 1(1), Gurgaon, passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was dismissed as the appeal was filed out of time and held

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

ITA 5179/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 18.10.2016 for assessment year 2009-10 wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of Income-Tax Officer, Ward : 1(1), Gurgaon, passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was dismissed as the appeal was filed out of time and held

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

ITA 5178/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 18.10.2016 for assessment year 2009-10 wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of Income-Tax Officer, Ward : 1(1), Gurgaon, passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was dismissed as the appeal was filed out of time and held

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

ITA 5177/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 18.10.2016 for assessment year 2009-10 wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of Income-Tax Officer, Ward : 1(1), Gurgaon, passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was dismissed as the appeal was filed out of time and held

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Born) has held that: "the decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elative Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

have found a place in the cash book, but in the ledger account through journal entries. There is another self- contradiction in the Income-tax Officer's finding that, if there was no real cash entry on the credit side of the cash book, but merely a notional or fictitious ... sources – Held, yes” 24 4.3. Recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of V. R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai [2018] 96 taxmann.com 647 (Madras) while dealing with a case where cash credit towards share capital were admittedly, only

Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7012/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7012/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 403, Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Ward-11(3), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach2937C Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhopal Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

that assessment order dated November 29, 2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the learned Income-tax Officer Ward 11(3) and as upheld by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- IV, Delhi under provisions of Section 250 is erroneous ... grossly erred in facts and 2 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. circumstances of the case to uphold the action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 11(3) [hereinafter referred as ‘Learned AO’] to partly uphold the adhoc disallowance of 10% of the expenditure incurred under the head Sales Promotion expenses without

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which the reassessment notice was issued were not found to exist, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer did not get jurisdiction to make the reassessment.” 17. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. SNG Developers

Hbn Insurance Agencies Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4014/DEL/2017[2006-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2006-17

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4013/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 4014/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Hbn Insurance Agencies Pvt. Vs Acit, Ltd., 527B, 5Th Floor, Hbn Officer, Central Circle-29, D-Mall, Plotod, Distt. Centre, New Delhi Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch4386E Assessee By : Sh. Dewnath Arora, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Dewnath Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Hbn Insurance Agencies Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4013/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4013/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 4014/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Hbn Insurance Agencies Pvt. Vs Acit, Ltd., 527B, 5Th Floor, Hbn Officer, Central Circle-29, D-Mall, Plotod, Distt. Centre, New Delhi Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch4386E Assessee By : Sh. Dewnath Arora, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Dewnath Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5232/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in ITA Nos. 5230, 5231 & 5232/Del/2015 & Petronet

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5231/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in ITA Nos. 5230, 5231 & 5232/Del/2015 & Petronet

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5230/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in ITA Nos. 5230, 5231 & 5232/Del/2015 & Petronet