Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Wel Intertrade Private Limited ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3) on 11 August, 2008

Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax

10.1 In the case before us in the reasons the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Therefore, the assessee's case is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wel Inter Trade P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (supra). We, therefore, hold that reopening of assessment in 7 I. T. A. No. 4652 (Del) of 2009 A N D C. O. No. 29 (Del) of 2010.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Cairn Energy India Pty.Limited vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax on 29 October, 2011

20. I do not think such line of reasoning could be sustained in the context of the decisions referred to above viz.,in the case of Messe Dusseldorf India P.Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer pricing officer and another reported in (2010) 320 ITR 565 (Delhi) (1) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 (Del), (2) Well Intertrade Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 308 ITR 22 (Del), (3) Duli Chand Singhania Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 269 ITR 192 (P&H), (4) Fenner India Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 241 ITR 672 (Mad) and (5) the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court dated 31.05.2011 in W.P.No.7789 of 2010 etc. It is no doubt true that under Explanation 2, Sub clause (c) narrates the instances which enables the Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act viz.,
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Deesons Traders, New Delhi on 18 September, 2017

In view of what has been discussed above and in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case cited as 10 ITA.No.4924/Del./2017 ACIT vs. M/s. Deesons Traders Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 and in the case cited as Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 308 ITR 38, Oracle System Corporation v. DDIT in W.P. No. 1873/2013 dated 8.10.2015, we are of the considered view that A.O. has exceeded his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So without entering into the merits of this case we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has validly and legally quashed the reopening by deleting the addition made by the A.O. Hence present appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, New Delhi vs Ito, Haldwani on 30 June, 2017

g) All material facts disclosed in return dated 28-6-2007: It is pertinent to take note that the assessee is not required to declare his personal expenses in the return. There is no such column in the return. The return as filed on 28-6-2007 was complete. In the reasons recorded there is no allegation that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year. Hence the preconditions prescribed u/s 147 have not been met and the proceedings as initiated are against law. Reference is drawn to - Wel Inttertrade (P) Ltd & Anr Vs ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 Delhi HC (Annex 18 of paper book)- Assessee having fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment as required by the AO, the precondition for invoking the proviso to S. 147 was not satisfied and therefore 5 ITA No. 297/Del/2017 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti AO acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing notice u/s 148 beyond four years period mentioned in S. 147.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Dsc Ltd. on 18 July, 2023

In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd (supra) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view- point, we hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above".[Emphasis is ours]
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

M/S Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Iv & ... on 3 November, 2008

In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd (supra) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-point, we hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 220 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next