Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Ramji Prasad, Faridabad vs Ito, Faridabad on 6 February, 2020

Central Electronics Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

5. Ld. DR strongly relied on the order of Assessing Officer and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); Bawa Abhai Singh vs DCIT 253 ITR 83 (Del); Ram Prasad vs ITO (1995) 82 Taxman 199 (All.). On the contrary, Ld. AR submitted that reopening of the assessment was bad in law and the entire material was available during the original assessment. He submitted that the reopening of assessment was made after 4 years and such reopening was made without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose the material facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

1. "The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in annulling the order u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act while holding invalid the reopening u/s 147, ignoring that where transaction itself, on the basis of subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction, mere disclosure of that transaction at time of original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a disclosure of the "true" and "full" facts in the case and ITO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a case. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); Bawa Abhai Singh vs. DCIT 253 ITR 83 (Del); 142 CTE (Del) 272 & 225 ITR 496; Ram Prasad vs. ITO (1995) 82 Taxman 199 (All); ESS ESS Kay Engg. Co. (P) Limited vs. CIT 124 Taxman 481 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1