Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 15 July, 2021

Bonjour Estates (P) Limited, New Delhi vs Pr.Cit-1, New Delhi on 11 April, 2023

11. From the copy of the from para 2 and 3 of show cause notice dated 09.02.2021 issued by the Ld. PCIT to the assessee clearly reveals that the Ld. PCIT firstly noted that as per information DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai it was informed by the AO of assessee that assessee company has received accommodation entries through two companies viz. Advanced Technology Ltd. and Yantra Natural Resources Ltd. As we have noted above the AO has made addition of entire Rs. 95 lakhs in the hands of assessee u/s. 68 of the Act concluded the reassessment proceedings and passing reassessment order on 31.12.2017. No other issue was picked up by AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings which could entitle the Ld. PCIT for alleging the reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The impugned notice u/s. 263 of the Act as well as impugned revisionary order dated 28.03.2021 clearly reveals that the PCIT intended to revise reassessment order dated 31.12.2017 and he set aside the same by directing the AO to ITA No. 732/Del/2021 Page 10 of 21 conduct necessary verification enquiry and to make a fresh denovo assessment order. At this juncture it is relevant and appropriate to take respectful cognizance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd vs ACIT (supra) and judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indira Industries vs PCIT. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 held as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bsc C&C Jv,New Delhi vs Acit Circle-62(1), New Delhi on 20 August, 2025

In the case of Wipro Ltd supra, the exemption u/s 10B of the Act was claimed in the return. However, the said claim was opted for withdrawal by a letter filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The issue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was whether such withdrawal was to be allowed , in view of section 10B(8) of the Act , since such withdrawal was made after the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. In those facts, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the requirement of making such declaration for withdrawal before the due Page | 8 ITA No. 4546/Del/2019 M/s. BSC C&C Joint Venture date u/s 139(1) of the Act, so prescribed, u/s 10B(8) of the Act is mandatory in nature and therefore, such withdrawal was rejected. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case before us, it is seen that section 80A(5) of the Act mandates the claim of relevant deduction in the return of income itself, whether u/s 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act. Thus, the requirement of section 80A(5) of the Act is mandatory in nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Punj,Delhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 May, 2026

10. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Limited Vs. ACIT reported in (2010) 191 Taxmann 29 wherein also the question was of revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act against the assessment made which was re- opened under section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court noted that the re-assessment proceedings were in relation to a particular grounds and subsequent thereto of passing of the re- assessment and exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act with reference to the issues, which did not form subject of re-opening of assessment cannot be exercised.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1