In an appeal against an ITAT order, the Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose regarding the validity of re-assessment proceedings, following the court's own pending judgment on the same facts for the previous assessment year. The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel, Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate.
versus
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R % 11.01.2016
Page 1 of 2
ITA No. 5/2016
requirement of Section 147 of the Act while initiating re-assessment proceedings?
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JANUARY 11, 2016 mg
Page 2 of 2
ITA No. 5/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the order holding that the Assessing Officer did not comply with the requirement of Section 147 of the Act while initiating re-assessment p
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No. 7943 of 2011Referred¶15
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU)
Rural Electrification Corporation Limited
S. Muralidhar
Vibhu Bakhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
