Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central)- 1 v. T.s. Pulses Pvt. Ltd
High Court
09 Aug 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central)- 1 v. T.s. Pulses Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
09 Aug 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central)- 1 v. T.s. Pulses Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI1 + ITA No. 471/2017
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)- 1
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel
versus
T.S. PULSES PVT. LTD.,
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R% 09.08.2017
1.This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) challenging the order dated 9[th] January, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 5196/Del./2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’ ) 2006-07.
2. The central question raised by the Revenue in this appeal is regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and the scope of the additions under Section 153C of the Act. In the absence of any incriminating material qua the Assessee, the applicability of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 is not in doubt.
ITA No. 471/2017
Page 1 of 2
3. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AUGUST 09, 2017 rd
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
ITA No. 471/2017
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.