Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi on 9 September, 2019
Restaurant
(India) Pvt Ltd vs CIT; being ITA No. 192/2009, which was
heard along with the present appeal. Judgment was reserved
in both the appeals.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.10 seconds)Aztec Software And Technology Service ... vs Acit on 12 July, 2007
The issue of legality and validity of above directions was raised before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. (supra). Their Lordships have also upheld validity of directions of CBDATED
Sahara India Financial Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 17 October, 2006
13. The first contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that in view of the decision of this Court in Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax , there has to be a purposeful interaction between the assessed and the Assessing Officer in regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts before an order is passed under Section 142(2A) of the Act. It was submitted that the principles of natural justice were not followed in as much as there was no interaction between the Petitioner and the Assessing Officer in this case since the records of the case were received by Respondent No. 2 in the first fortnight of March, 2006 and the impugned order was issued immediately thereafter on 14th March, 2006. Only one hearing took place on 9th March, 2006 when the matter was adjourned to 20th March, 2006 without any discussion about the complexity of the accounts.
Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Anr. on 16 October, 2006
34. Since the extracted portions of the impugned instruction is based on a correct understanding of the legal position, the question of the CBDT's binding instruction being contrary to the statute does not arise. The instructions are consistent with Section 119 of the Act and therefore not contrary to any of Page 3597 the decisions cited including Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra), Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M.P. Tewari v. Y.P. Chawla as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 195 ITR 607 (Y.P. Chawla v. M.P. Tiwari).
Rajesh Kumar & Ors vs D.C.I.T. & Ors on 1 November, 2006
It is significant to note that except the Bombay High Court, the views
taken by the Calcutta and Delhi High Court had not been explicitly dissented
from. The learned Judges of the Delhi High Court in Yum Restaurants India
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Gurunanak Enterprises (supra) did not hold that the
decisions have been incorrectly rendered. They were, however, held to be
inapplicable to the facts of the cases.
Anandiben B. Patel, Mumbai vs Assessee on 26 February, 2013
iii) Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (278 ITR 401 Delhi)-
Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Assessee on 6 July, 2010
iii) Yum! Restaurants (India) P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR
0150 (Del) wherein the disallowance of ` 2,76,882/- on
account of accrued marketing expenditure to the
franchisees of the assessee was not held justified.
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. vs Uoi And Anr on 10 September, 2012
12. The highlighted portion of the said paragraph indicates that the
Assessing Officer should have examined the books of accounts and
made a genuine and honest attempt to understand the accounts. A
cursory look at the books, it was stated, was not sufficient. The
aforesaid observations find resonance and acceptance in another
Division Bench decision of this court in Yum! Restaurant's case
(supra), in which it has been held :-
Shri Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs Dcit, Ghaziabad on 27 January, 2023
7.2 The ld. DR submitted that the nature and scope of duty which
the Assessing Officer is required to discharge in terms of provisions
of Section 142(2A) are evidently of limited nature and such act is a
part and parcel of ongoing assessment proceedings which the
Assessing Officer is required to complete under the provisions of
Chapter-XIV of the Act. A reference was made to the decision of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Yum! Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.
vs. CIT (2005) 196 CTR 435(Del.) and it was contended that an
order under Section 142(2A) is not a final order and does not finally
determine the obligations and liability of the assessee. Such action
is merely a step towards completion of the assessment proceedings
which is taken by the Assessing Officer in order to completely and
fully understand the accounts of the assessee. Even otherwise, the
assessee is under legal obligation to provide complete assistance to
the Assessing Officer in finalization of the assessment proceedings.
The ld. DR submitted that the object of Section 142(2A) is more to
facilitate completion of assessment proceedings effectively by the
Assessing Officer and upon gathering proper understanding of the
financial affairs of the assessee. It was thus contended that no fault
can be found in the process adopted by the AO for imposition of
special audit in the context of the case.
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 April, 2009
Restaurant (India) Pvt
Ltd vs CIT; being ITA No. 192/2009, which was heard alongwith the
present appeal. Judgment was reserved in both the appeals.
1