IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No-160/2005. Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No-160/2005. Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No-160/2005 Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007 Judgment delivered on: 24th May, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI... Appellant Through:Mr.J.R.Goel, Adv. Vs. M/S BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. ALUMINIUM SADAN, CORE-6, 3rd FLOOR, SCOPE OFFICE COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI Respondent Through:Mr.M.S.Syali, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Saubhagaya Aggarwal, Mr.Aseem Mowar & Mr.M.P.Rastogi, Advocates. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA V.B. GUPTA, J. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short as Act) against the order dated 6th October, 2004 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as Tribunal) in ITA No.1818/Del/2004 for the assessment year The appeal was admitted for hearing and following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:-

2 (i) Whether the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue in as much as the AO had accepted the revised computation of income without any revised return filed by the assessee as required under Section 139(5) of the Act? (ii) Whether the revised computation of income could be accepted even after the expiry of time limit to file a revised return as prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act? 3. The brief facts are that the Assessee filed Income-tax return for the assessment year on 31st December, 1999 declaring income of Rs. 160,03,15,698/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 8th September, 2000 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee vide letter dated 26th December, 2001 filed revised computation of income thereby reducing the income to Rs.133,21,90,698/- by claiming further expenses of Rs.26,81,25,000/- on account of additional power cost and other expenses in connection with failure of transmission tower which earlier were not claimed in the original return. 4. The Assessee vide letter dated 19th March, 2002 filed another revised computation of the income further reducing the income to Rs.131,31,94,406/- by claiming further deduction of Rs.3,41,69,312/- on account of the expenses being the cost of afforestation of mines and maintenance of roads, as these two were not claimed earlier in the original return. 5. The Assessing Officer after considering the facts of the case and statements made by the Assessee, allowed the expenses claimed in the first revised computation of income to the extent of Rs.26,81,25,000/- but disallowed the expenses of Rs.3,41,69,312/- claimed in the second revised computation of the income holding that the same are of capital nature. The assessment was completed at Rs.146,88,61,184/-, vide assessment order dated 28th March, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I after examining the record of the Assessee held that the Assessing Officer has passed the erroneous assessment order on 28th March, 2002 which order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the Assessee as to why order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be revised. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after hearing the Assessee and after taking into consideration all the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee

3 passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 31st March, 2004 and thereby set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer with the directions that it may be reframed de novo after making enquiries as may be considered necessary. 8. The Assessee, feeling aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under Section 263 of the Act. 9. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide impugned order 6th October, 2004 allowed the appeal of the Assessee and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 10. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue as the Assessing Officer has accepted the revised computation of income without any revised return filed by the Assessee as required under Section 139(5) of the Act. The revised return under the law can only be filed within the period of one year after the expiry of assessment year and the Assessee being unable to revise the return since the limitation period has expired, filed the revised computation of income which was nothing but the revision of the return of income. 12. The order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law since it allowed the Assessee to do indirectly what he could not do directly. Further more acceptance of revised computation of the income beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act makes this provision redundant. The Assesseecompany did not furnish revised return of income since revised return as contemplated under Section 139(5) of the Act should be in the proper and prescribed form and it should be duly signed and verified by a competent authority. It is also contented that it can be filed any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The additional deductions claimed by the company were, thus, beyond the stipulated time, i.e., the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year and these revised computation of income dated 26th December, 2001 was not signed by the competent authority as prescribed under Section 140(c) of the Act. If it is not signed and verified in the prescribed manner, then it is a breach of Section 140(c) of the Act and, therefore, the same is not to be taken as a valid return.

4 13. Further, the revised claim made by the Asssessee through the letter does not amount to a revised return. Unless and until the return is revised, the claim originally made in the return could not be disturbed. 14. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not find the order passed by Assessing Officer erroneous in any manner. The phrase prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order and not in isolation. It is not clear as to how by allowing the legitimate deduction to the Assessee, a prejudice is caused to the Revenue. Provision of Section 140(c) of the Act only requires the return to be signed by a competent person but no legal burden is casted on an Assessee to correct the original return only through a specified person. It is sufficient if the correction has been made by the authorised representative. The Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of the Assessee after making due and proper enquiry but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not say in its order that the claim is wrong or is not allowable. The main reason taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is that the claim for further deduction cannot be allowed merely by filing revised computation beyond the stipulated time for revision of the return. There is a distinction between a revised return and correction of the return. It is contended that if an Assessee files an application for correcting the original return, it does not mean that the return already filed has been revised. The return also on record retains the character of original return whereas by filing the revised return, the Assessee in fact admits that the original return filed by him was not correct or complete and as a result thereof such original return is taken to have been withdrawn and is submitted by the revised return. 15. Return of income in this case was filed on 31st December, It was processed under Section 143(a) of the Act vide intimation dated 8th September, 2000 wherein the returned income was accepted as such. Thereafter notice under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued within the prescribed period. The Assessee submitted a revised computation of assessable income vide its letter dated 26th December, 2001 which was further amended vide their letter dated 19th March, As per Tribunal's order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has not disputed this fact that the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion after considering the relevant facts and evidences and the assessment has been framed after making due and proper inquiry. The Commissioner of Income Tax has not shown any disagreement on the allowability of deduction legally to the Assessee and no fault have been found in the action of Assessing Officer in this respect. The main

5 objection of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is that the claim made by the Assessee through his letter dated 26th September, 2001 during the assessment proceedings was beyond the time prescribed for revising return as envisaged under Section 139(5) of the Act and as such the decision of the Assessing Officer to allow deduction is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is apparent from the record that the Assessee had incurred additional power costs and other expenses in connection with the failure of transaction tower and these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and they cannot be held as capital or personal expenses. 17. The Assessee has claimed 1/5th of the total expenditure in the original return of income by considering the balance as deferred revenue expenditure. Since there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Act, Assessee claimed deduction for the whole amount of such expenditure within the year itself through his letter dated 26th December, Further, the Assessee did not revise the return for which the time as prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act expired but made this claim during the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer allowed the claim after considering all the relevant facts and evidences, the same being in accordance with law. 18. Before the Assessing Officer, the Assessee did not say that by making such a claim he has revised his return and the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn. The Assessee also did not say that the original return should not be taken as a basis of assessment. What the Assessee has maintained before the Assessing Officer is that the original return is a valid return and he has merely made a further claim of expenditure which was duly disclosed in the return filed originally but only a part of it was claimed as deductible in the year under consideration and through its revised claim only the quantum was enhanced and as such the Assessee did not make a new claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) nowhere said in his order that claim is wrong or is not allowable legally. 19. Chapter XIV of the Act deals with Procedure for Assessment. Amongst other things it specifies as to by whom the return should be signed, whether a revised return can be furnished and what is the time limit for furnishing the revised return. 20. Section 139(5) of the Act deals with revised return and it read as under:- (5) If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the

6 expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier: Provided that where the return relates to the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year, the reference to one year aforesaid shall be construed as a reference to two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 21. Section 139(5), in terms, empowers only those assessees who have furnished returns i.e. under section 139(1) or under section 139(2) or in pursuance of a notice issued under section 142(1), to furnish a revised return if the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the originally filed return. Such a revised return can be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. 22. The filing of the revised return after discovery of omission or wrong statement is not by itself sufficient to bring the revised return within the ambit of Section 139(5). The further requirement is that this omission or wrong statement in the original return must be due to a bona fide inadvertence or mistake on the part of the Assessee. 23. Section 140 of the Act lays down as to by whom return should be signed. The relevant provision of this Section for the purpose of present case is 140(c) which read as under:- S.140. Return by whom to be signed.-- The return under section 139 shall be signed and verified-- (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) in the case of a company, by the managing director thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing director is not able to sign and verify the return, or where there is no managing director, by any director thereof. Provided that where the company is not resident in India, the return may be signed and verified by a person who holds a valid power of attorney from such company to do so, which shall be attached to the return: Provided further that,-- (a) where the company is being wound up, whether under the orders of a court or otherwise, or where any person has been appointed as the receiver of any assets of the company, the return shall be signed and verified by the liquidator referred to in sub-section (1) of section 178;

7 (b) where the management of the company has been taken over by the Central Government or any State Government under any law, the return of the company shall be signed and verified by the principal officer thereof; (cc) xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx xxx (dd) xxx xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx xxx (f) xxx xxx xxx xxx 24. The common law maxim qui facit per alium facit per se governs the matter of signatures by persons. That rule says that what a man can do himself can equally well be done by his duly authorised agent. It is well-settled that unless there is a specific provision of law, requiring the signatures and verification of the assessee himself, the signature, etc., may be validly affixed by the constituted attorney. It would be sufficient if the correction has been made in the hand of authorised representative. 25. As per substantial questions of law framed in the present case, it is to be seen as to whether the order passed by the Asessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 26. To deal with this issue, it will be apt to quote section 263(1) of Act which is relevant for our purpose Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue -(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the cse justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to 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, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is 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

8 erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. 27. The Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83, had the occasion of interpreting, the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It held that:- The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by the person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 28. Vide letter dated 26th December, 2001, the Assessee filed revised computation of income. As per this letter, in the original return a sum of Rs.6,70,31,000/- was claimed as part of cost repair of Transmission Tower, cost of extra raw material consumed and additional power purchased from Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and thus the total additional expenditure incurred was Rs.33,51,56,000/- during the year. Since such additional cost had been actually incurred because of the Transmission Tower carrying power between their captive power plant and plant at Korba Complex, a total sum of Rs.33,51,56,000/- was shown under the head Deferred Revenue Expenditure and has been shown in the assets side of the balance sheet 1/5th of the same amounting to Rs.6,70,31,000/- was only debited to Profit & Loss A/c. and the balance amount of Rs.26,81,25,000/- has been omitted to be claimed in the income tax return. This expenditure is wholly incurred for purpose of business and the same is an allowable deduction and thus the Assessee claimed deduction of whole sum of Rs.33,51,56,000/- and computed the total taxable income at Rs.133,21,90,698/-. considering the additional expenditure of Rs.26,81,25,000/ As per assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, an amount of Rs.7,81,50,000/- has been claimed as Deferred Revenue Expenditure by the Assessee. The company submitted a revised computation of assessable income vide its letter dated 26th December, 2001 and Assessee also submitted the details of Revised Deferred Revenue Expenditure vide their letter dated 15th February, 2002.

9 It was clarified during the hearing that additional expenditure towards power cost and other miscellaneous expenses incurred during the year amounted to Rs.33,51,56,000/- which was charged to deferred Revenue expenses. Further, 1/5th of this amount i.e. Rs.6,70,31,000/- was deducted being already amortised during the year and the balance amount claimed in the revised computation comes to Rs.26,81,25,000/-. Further the Assessee had submitted full details of the expenses incurred for the failure of Transmission Tower which consisted of Rs. 32,22,21,000/- paid to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board towards additional power consumed; Rs.54,98,608/- towards cost of additional raw material due to power breakdown and Rs.74,36,329/- towards repair expenses of Transmission Tower. 30. So from the material available on record it is clear that 1/5th amount, that is, Rs.6,70,31,000/-had already been mentioned by the Assessee in his original return. 31. The Tribunal in impugned order has observed that the perusal of revision order reveals that the Commissioner of Income Tax did not find the order erroneous in any manner as a matter of fact. The phrase Prejudicial to the interest of Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order and not in isolation. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax does not say as to how by allowing the legitimate deduction to the Assessee a prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. In any event, when the order was not found erroneous, the Commissioner of Income Tax did not acquire jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 32. So, there is a categorical finding by the Tribunal to this effect that even Commissioner of Income Tax did not find the order erroneous and as such the Commissioner of Income Tax had no power to revise the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 33. The Tribunal further held that provision of Section 140(c) of the Act only requires that the return should be signed by a competent person and no legal burden is casted upon the Assessee to correct the original return only through a specified person. It is sufficient if the correction was made in the hand of authorised representative. The Assessee had corrected the claim allowable to it by virtue of the provision of Section 37(1) of the Act on account of the expenditure which was incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business. 34. Allahabad High Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Central, [1973] 90 ITR 236, had the occasion to distinguish between revised return and correction of the return. It was held:-

10 There is a distinction between a revised return and a correction of the return. If the Assessee files some application for correcting a return already filed or making amends therein, it would not mean that he has filed a revised return. It will still retain the character of an original return, but once the revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of the assessment. 35. Thus in our opinion the order passed by the Assessing Officer in accepting the revised computation of income was not erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and the revised computation of income has been accepted within the prescribed period. As such the first question is answered in 'Negative' whereas, second question is answered in Affirmative. 36. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 37. No order as to costs. Sd/- V. B. GUPTA, J Sd/- MADAN B. LOKUR, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No.798 /2007. Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No.798 /2007. Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No.798 /2007 Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008 Judgment delivered on:7th April, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II, New

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER. Judgment delivered on: ITA 243/2008. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER. Judgment delivered on: ITA 243/2008. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2008 ITA 243/2008 SUBODH KUMAR BHARGAVA... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX... Respondent Advocates

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14 + ITA 557/2015. versus CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R %

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14 + ITA 557/2015. versus CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14 + ITA 557/2015 COPERION IDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED... Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR BETWEEN: ITA NO.223/2009 Shri.R.S.Sharma,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010 + ITA 239/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal versus GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: PRONOUNCED ON: ITA No.119/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: PRONOUNCED ON: ITA No.119/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT RESERVED ON: 09.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 20.11.2012 ITA No.119/2012 CIT... Appellant Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing counsel versus

More information

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Tapan Kumar Dutta...

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Tapan Kumar Dutta... REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2007 Tapan Kumar Dutta... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal... Respondent(s) J U

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2009 + ITA 596/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED... Respondent Advocates who appeared

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Decided on : ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Decided on : ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Decided on : 27.07.2012 ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012 ITA 196/2012, C.M. APPL. 5436/2012 ITA 197/2012, C.M. APPL.5437/2012 ITA 198/2012,

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: ITA 232/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: ITA 232/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 21.05.2014 + ITA 232/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI... Appellant versus WORLDWIDE TOWNSHIP PROJECTS LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared

More information

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2004

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2004 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 516-527 OF 2004 Brij Lal & Ors.... Appellants versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar... Respondents with Civil

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: ITA No.415/ Appellant.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: ITA No.415/ Appellant. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2013 ITA No.415/2012 CIT... Appellant versus MAK DATA LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR BETWEEN: ITA NO.828/2007 H.Raghavendra

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) I.T.A. No.264 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) I.T.A. No.264 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) Present: The Hon ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya And The Hon ble Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti I.T.A. No.264 of 2003

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 1749/2010... Appellant Mr.Sanjeev Counsel. Sabharwal, Sr. Standing MAGIC INTERNATIONAL P LTD... Respondent Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Ms.Rani Kiyala, Advocates.

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad A Bench, Hyderabad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad A Bench, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad A Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member Smt. Nama Chinnamma Hyderabad PAN: ABKPW 1887

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision: 23rd February, ITA 1222/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision: 23rd February, ITA 1222/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2012. ITA 1222/2011 CIT... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1149/HYD/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09,

More information

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: versus

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: versus $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: 25.02.2015 + ITA 117/2015 JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT LTD... Appellant Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX...

More information

Chapter IV Assessments, Payment, Recovery and Collection of Tax 24. Submission of return

Chapter IV Assessments, Payment, Recovery and Collection of Tax 24. Submission of return Chapter IV Assessments, Payment, Recovery and Collection of Tax 24. Submission of return (1) Every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act including a dealer from whom any amount of tax has been deducted

More information

Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of M/s. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Makum Road, Tinsukia Versus-

Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of M/s. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Makum Road, Tinsukia Versus- THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014 M/s. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Makum Road, Tinsukia 786125. -Versus- Commissioner

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd., The Times

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA ITA NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA ITA NO. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BETWEEN: PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA ITA NO.22/2011 1. COMMISSIONER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... APPELLANT Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1580/Del/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05 05 M/s

More information

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF MARCH 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN BETWEEN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.297/2014 1. THE COMMISSIONER

More information

more than the capital gains and the new residential asset was purchased within 2 years from the date of sale of residential property. 3. The Learned C

more than the capital gains and the new residential asset was purchased within 2 years from the date of sale of residential property. 3. The Learned C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad B Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No.1707/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2011 + ITA 938/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant versus AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this

More information

Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd

Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd Judgement: 1. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision : 28th February, ITA 92/2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision : 28th February, ITA 92/2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision : 28th February, 2012. ITA 92/2011 CIT Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel... Appellant versus MACHINO

More information

Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Atul Jasani for the respondent. DATED : 4 th JUNE, 2018.

Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Atul Jasani for the respondent. DATED : 4 th JUNE, 2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1358 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2015 Commissioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2009 ITA 1130/2006 09.01.2009 M/S HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD Appellant Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of decision: ITA 232/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of decision: ITA 232/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of decision: 22.11.2012 ITA 232/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel... Appellant

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 607/2015. versus AND ITA 608/2015. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 607/2015. versus AND ITA 608/2015. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12. + ITA 607/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr.Shikhar Garg,

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 ITA Nos. 6675 & 6676/Del/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6675/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2013-14)

More information

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF B.L. Passi... Appellant(s)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF B.L. Passi... Appellant(s) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2007 B.L. Passi... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side. I.T.A. No.201 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side. I.T.A. No.201 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side PRESENT: The Hon ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Hon ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI I.T.A. No.201 of 2003 Md. Serajuddin

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI. Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI. Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Limited (Formerly known

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1423 /Del/2013 Assessment year : 2008-09 Simran

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 637 of 2013 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1711 of 2009 With TAX APPEAL NO. 2577 of 2009 With TAX APPEAL NO. 925 of 2010 With TAX APPEAL NO. 949 of 2010 With

More information

INDIRECT TAXES Central Excise and Customs Case Law Update

INDIRECT TAXES Central Excise and Customs Case Law Update CA. Hasmukh Kamdar INDIRECT TAXES Central Excise and Customs Case Law Update Valuation Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (283) ELT 161 (S.C.) decided on 29-8-12] Facts

More information

Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And Another

Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And Another HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case:- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 73 of 2001 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And Another Respondent :- M/S Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION No OF 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION No OF 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3314 OF 2004 wp-3314-2004.sxw M/s. Eskay K'n' IT (India) Ltd... Petitioner. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.195/LKW/2011 Assessment Year:2006-07 Income

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 605/2012. CIT... Appellant. Through: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 605/2012. CIT... Appellant. Through: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 605/2012 CIT... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD... Respondent Through: Mr Rajat Navet

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN : DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR STA No.112/2009 M/S

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Judgment delivered on : ITA Nos. 697/2007, 698/2007 & 699/2007.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Judgment delivered on : ITA Nos. 697/2007, 698/2007 & 699/2007. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Judgment delivered on : 06.03.2009 ITA Nos. 697/2007, 698/2007 & 699/2007 ESTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INCOME TAX MATTER. Judgment delivered on : ITR Nos. 159 to 161 /1988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INCOME TAX MATTER. Judgment delivered on : ITR Nos. 159 to 161 /1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INCOME TAX MATTER Judgment delivered on : 09.07.2008 ITR Nos. 159 to 161 /1988 M/S DELHI INTER EXPORTS PVT LTD... Appellant versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Date of decision: 9th July, 2013 ITA 131/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Date of decision: 9th July, 2013 ITA 131/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Date of decision: 9th July, 2013 ITA 131/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR BETWEEN: ITA NOS.251/2016 & 390/2016

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. TAX APPEAL NO. 749 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. TAX APPEAL NO. 749 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 749 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI With HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7313/2010 Date of decision: December 08, 2011 RRB CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.Krishnan with Mr. Nishank Singh,

More information

ITA No. 331 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 331 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009

ITA No. 331 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 331 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009 ITA No. 331 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 331 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II...Appellant M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Versus...Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. M/s Lakhani Marketing Incl., Plot No.131, Sector 24, Faridabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. M/s Lakhani Marketing Incl., Plot No.131, Sector 24, Faridabad 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:02.04.2014 Appellant M/s Lakhani Marketing Incl., Plot No.131,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA. ITA No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA. ITA No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA BETWEEN: ITA No.660/2015 1. THE

More information

Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2) Vs. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, Tax Appeal No.4225/Mum/2012.

Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2) Vs. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, Tax Appeal No.4225/Mum/2012. vikrant 1/15 19 ITXA 1826 2014.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1826 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2) Vs. M/s. ITD CEM India

More information

G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE

G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 Versus M/s. G K K Capital Markets (P) Limited

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE 1 BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.480/2013 M/S.

More information

Vs. Date of hearing : Date of Pronouncement : O R D E R

Vs. Date of hearing : Date of Pronouncement : O R D E R IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5720/Mum/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/s. Forever

More information

ITA No. 140 of had been sold on , had been handed over to him. The assessee furnished the desired information and documents, including

ITA No. 140 of had been sold on , had been handed over to him. The assessee furnished the desired information and documents, including ITA No. 140 of 2000-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 140 of 2000 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Vinod Kumar Jain...Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX. Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on : ITA No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX. Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on : ITA No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX Judgment reserved on : 08.09.2008 Judgment delivered on : 06.11.2008 ITA No. 428/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II... Appellant -versus-

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C.GUPTA, V.P. AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C.GUPTA, V.P. AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C.GUPTA, V.P. AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Universal Product (P) Ltd., Dholki Mohalla, Sadar Meerut (APPELLANT)

More information

ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A)- BACK TO SQUARE ONE AT TRIBUNAL STAGE By Subash Agarwal, Advocate

ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A)- BACK TO SQUARE ONE AT TRIBUNAL STAGE By Subash Agarwal, Advocate ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A)- BACK TO SQUARE ONE AT TRIBUNAL STAGE By Subash Agarwal, Advocate Introduction 1. The first appellate authority viz., CIT(A) enjoys wide powers under the

More information

Before Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM

Before Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI Before Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7 New Delhi

More information

M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. The Additional Commissioner of

M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. The Additional Commissioner of IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2014 M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd... Appellant v/s. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,

More information

ITA 256 OF In The High Court At Calcutta Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) Original Side

ITA 256 OF In The High Court At Calcutta Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) Original Side 1 ITA 256 OF 2002 In The High Court At Calcutta Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) Original Side Present: The Hon ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And The Hon ble Justice Kalidas Mukherjee Paharpur Cooling

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT. THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AND. STRP Nos OF 2013*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT. THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AND. STRP Nos OF 2013* 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR STRP Nos.774-794 OF 2013* BETWEEN: M/S

More information

W.P.No.39548/2012 (T-IT)

W.P.No.39548/2012 (T-IT) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.No.39548/2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN : M/s

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Income Tax Appeal No. 1167/2011. Reserved on: 21st October, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Income Tax Appeal No. 1167/2011. Reserved on: 21st October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER Income Tax Appeal No. 1167/2011 Reserved on: 21st October, 2011 Date of Decision: 8th November, 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-IV,

More information

$~R * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: ITA /2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant

$~R * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: ITA /2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant $~R-11-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: 19.02.2015 + ITA 120-125/2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant in all cases versus NISHI MEHRA... Respondent in ITA 120/2000 ARUN

More information

Income from business as computed in the assessment order

Income from business as computed in the assessment order SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ. AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 785 AND 783 OF 1977 APRIL 11, 1978 S.T.

More information

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA. Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA. Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1185/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 I.T.O Ward 1(1),

More information

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5848 of 2010 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5850 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARSD 15(3), NEW DELHI ROOM NO.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2010 M/s V.K. Timber Pvt. Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) & another. -----Respondents CORAM:-

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-67. versus M/S ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-67. versus M/S ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS LTD. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-67 + ITA 106/2002 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX... Appellant versus M/S ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS LTD.... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV. versus. versus. versus. versus.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV. versus. versus. versus. versus. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 31.05.2013 + ITA 1732/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN...Appellant. Respondent ITA 1733/2006 COMMISSIONER

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, TDS Rohtak (APPELLANT) PAN No. RTKPO1586E

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO BETWEEN : AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR CRP No.332/2010 STATE

More information

IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C. Vinay Mishra. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of s.p. no. 124 (Bang.

IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C. Vinay Mishra. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of s.p. no. 124 (Bang. IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C Vinay Mishra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of 2012 s.p. no. 124 (Bang.) of 2012 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10] OCTOBER 12, 2012 ORDER Jason

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA WRIT APPEAL NO.4077 OF 2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. Dated this the 17 th day of June 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. Dated this the 17 th day of June 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 17 th day of June 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA No. 578 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 648 & 649/Chd/2014 Assessment years : 2010-11

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti, 2, Civil Lines, Roorkee. PAN

More information

ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Kr.Mishra, Advocate alongwith Mr.Saurabh Mishra, Advocate. versus

ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Kr.Mishra, Advocate alongwith Mr.Saurabh Mishra, Advocate. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act ARB.A. 21/2014 Judgment reserved on: 01.12.2014 Judgment pronounced on: 09.12.2014 ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.... Appellant

More information

Short title, extent and commencement. Definitions.

Short title, extent and commencement. Definitions. PART I GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, PUNJAB NOTIFICATION The 19th April, 2018 No.12-Leg./2018.-The following Act of the Legislature of the State of Punjab received the

More information

25 Penalties Introduction Penalties

25 Penalties Introduction Penalties 25 Penalties 25.1 Introduction The Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for the imposition of a penalty on an assessee who wilfully commits any offence under the provisions of the Act. Penalty is levied over

More information

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22)-7 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22)-7 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 2003 (Vol. 22)-7 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. & Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1338 OF 1991 M/s Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax,

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) versus. With W.P.(C) 4558/2014.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) versus. With W.P.(C) 4558/2014. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DVAT ACT, 2004 Decided on : ST.APPL. 65/2014. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DVAT ACT, 2004 Decided on : ST.APPL. 65/2014. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DVAT ACT, 2004 Decided on : 19.02.2015 ST.APPL. 65/2014 THE COMMISSIONER, VAT Through : Sh. H.C. Bhatia, Special Counsel.... Appellant A.K. WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES

More information

PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT. -- By CA Mahendra Sanghvi

PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT. -- By CA Mahendra Sanghvi PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT -- By CA Mahendra Sanghvi RETURN OF INCOME & SELF ASSESSMENT 2 Procedure assessment covered of is by Chapter XIV of RETURN OF INCOME & SELF 3 ASSESSMENT Shall furnish, on or before

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA 3/2001 Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA 3/2001 Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA 3/2001 Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Adv.... Appellant versus M/S HANDICRAFTS

More information

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.487 OF 2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. Versus M/s.

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG,, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG,, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG,, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4281/Del/2010 Assessment Year : 2001-02 02 Income

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1743/Hyd/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bellwether

More information

No disallowance under section 14A, where the assessee has got no income from a composite and indivisible business

No disallowance under section 14A, where the assessee has got no income from a composite and indivisible business 1 No disallowance under section 14A, where the assessee has got no income from a composite and indivisible business [Published in 384 ITR (Jour) 1 (Part-1)] By S.K.Tyagi Recently in the case of one of

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 07.01.2016 + ITA 1011/2015 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant versus FACOR POWER LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 BETWEEN: PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO. 303/2015 1. Principle

More information

2011 NTN 46)-10 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

2011 NTN 46)-10 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 2011 NTN (Vol. 46)-10 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, & Anil R. Dave, JJ. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3186 OF 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 560 of 2011] Commissioner

More information

Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Stereo HCJDA 38p. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ITR No.01/2012/ BWP (Commissioner Inland Revenue versus Zulfiqar Ali Proprietor M/s Ali Electronic

More information