← All Phrases

“protective assessment”

MiscellaneousAssessmentAssessment441 judgments

The decision most relied on for protective assessment is Lalji Haridas v. ITO (43 ITR 387), cited in 238 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on protective assessment

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
178 ITR 451 · 1989 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT
39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

Judgments citing protective assessment

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Mrs. Devyani Ajit Mulik, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

wait for valuation report from the department valuation officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the penalty based on the protective assessment.” BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. The assessee has shown long term capital gain for the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted

Publics Communications P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground 2 is allowed and ground 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 199

goodwill. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deprecation on goodwill amounting to ₹11,73,198/-. The learned Assessing Officer made the above disallowances on protective assessment manner. The assessee company entered into business transfer agreement with M/s Ambience Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. for ₹6.25 crores. This sum was capitalized

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

department against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.1.2023 for the assessment year 2007-08 which is in turn arise out of the protective assessment order passed in the case of Nadakrishna Timmaiah, Bangalore for the same assessment year i.e. AY 2007-08. 2. First, we will deal with

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

department against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.1.2023 for the assessment year 2007-08 which is in turn arise out of the protective assessment order passed in the case of Nadakrishna Timmaiah, Bangalore for the same assessment year i.e. AY 2007-08. 2. First, we will deal with

Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5422/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasmt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, Vs. Acit, Wife Of Late Shri Bhushan Central Circle-7, Lal Sawhney, New Delhi 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ejkps1519F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Tarun Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

thereon @4% on the alleged deposit balance. Further, he submitted that though the ld AO in para 4.2 of his order had stated that protective assessment of the same notional interest income has been made in the hands of Smt Sneh Lata Sawhney, but no such protective assessment was ever

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2828/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

lead case and its finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals wherever it is applicable. GOA:1 Issue: Erroneous upholding of protective assessment P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 2826 to 2828/Mum/2023 Jolly Maker 1 Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT-18(2) [Tax Effect: Rs.1

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2827/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

lead case and its finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals wherever it is applicable. GOA:1 Issue: Erroneous upholding of protective assessment P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 2826 to 2828/Mum/2023 Jolly Maker 1 Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT-18(2) [Tax Effect: Rs.1

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2826/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals wherever it is applicable. ITA No. 2826/Mum/2023 GOA:1 Issue: Erroneous upholding of protective assessment Page 2 ITA Nos. 2826 to 2828/Mum/2023 Jolly Maker 1 Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT-18(2) [Tax Effect: Rs.1

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Visakhapatnam vs. Alakram International Trading Company Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly we shall take up the ITA No. 118/Viz/2021 and ITA No. 120/Viz/2021 wherein the protective assessments have been made by the Ld. AO and the grounds raised by the Revenue are identical in nature. We shall take

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Dolphin Highrise Private Limited, Kilkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly we shall take up the ITA No. 118/Viz/2021 and ITA No. 120/Viz/2021 wherein the protective assessments have been made by the Ld. AO and the grounds raised by the Revenue are identical in nature. We shall take

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Limited, Kollkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly we shall take up the ITA No. 118/Viz/2021 and ITA No. 120/Viz/2021 wherein the protective assessments have been made by the Ld. AO and the grounds raised by the Revenue are identical in nature. We shall take

Anshul Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3212/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anshul Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-5(1)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountants, 16Th Floor, Vs. Mk Road, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Mumbai-400020. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aahca 6495 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

submitted that the protective commission. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the protective commission. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the protective assessment could not survive. With regard to the addition made assessment could not survive. With regard to the addition made assessment could not survive. With regard ... case of M/s Rajesh Estate & Nirman M/s Rajesh Estate & Nirman P. Ltd. is settled and subjected to tax settled and subjected to tax, the protective assessment , the protective assessment has no independent standing no independent standing. Accordingly the protective addition the protective addition made by the AO in the hands

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Ltd., Haryana vs. Circle 13(1), Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

That on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon’ble DRP/ Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO have grossly erred in using protective assessment for application of BLT approach as the very concept of protective assessment is only relevant where there is an ambiguity regarding the Appellant

Mohinder Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7673/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR
Section 153A

force in the contention of the Ld. DR that if substantive additions are deleted then as per orders of ld. CIT(A) the protective assessment in the hands of present assessee / appellant will still revive. In fact the findings arrived by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Orient Craft

Mohinder Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7672/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR
Section 153A

force in the contention of the Ld. DR that if substantive additions are deleted then as per orders of ld. CIT(A) the protective assessment in the hands of present assessee / appellant will still revive. In fact the findings arrived by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Orient Craft