sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

May, 31st 2013

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 21.05.2013

+       ITA 246/2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                      ... Appellant


INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT. LTD.                                     ... Respondent

+       ITA 247/2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                      ... Appellant


INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT. LTD.                                     ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant     : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr Puneet Gupta
For the Respondent    : Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr T.R Talwal and Mr Vikas Jain




CM No. 7644/2013 in ITA 247/2013

        The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 246-247/2013                                                       Page 1 of 3
ITA 246/2013 & ITA 247/2013

1.      The present appeals pertain to the assessment year 2001-02 and
arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal on 29.06.2012 in
ITA No. 4777/Del/2011 and ITA No. 4778/Del/2011, respectively.

2.      In an earlier round before the Tribunal, the assessee had filed
appeals being ITA Nos. 3479-3480/Del/2009. The Tribunal, by virtue of
its common order dated 16.10.2009, upheld the validity of proceedings
under Section 147 of the Income ­ tax Act, 1961 and remanded the matter
on merits to the file of the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the
respondent / assessee preferred appeals before this court being ITA Nos.
1228-1229/2010. By a judgment and order dated 23.12.2011, this court
set aside the Tribunal's order insofar as the validity of proceedings under
Section 147 of the said Act were concerned. In other words, the High
Court took the view that the proceedings under Section 147 of the said
Act were invalid.

3.      In the meanwhile, in the remand proceedings, the Assessing
Officer framed the assessments on 29.11.2010 in respect of both the
assessment years.      The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
dismissed the appeals filed therefrom by the assessee by two separate
orders dated 16.08.2011. It is against those separate orders, that the
assessee was in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA
Nos. 4777-4778/Del/2011 which have been allowed by the Tribunal on
29.06.2012 after noticing the fact that this court had, by its judgment and
order dated 23.12.2011, held the initiation of proceedings under Section

ITA 246-247/2013                                                 Page 2 of 3
147/148 of the said Act to be invalid.           We may also note that
subsequently by an order dated 21.09.2012, the Special Leave Petition
preferred by the revenue against the order dated 23.12.2011 in respect of
ITA No. 1228/2010 also came to be dismissed.

4.      Since the issue of the validity of the proceedings under Section 147
has attained finality in the sense that the said proceedings have been held
to be invalid by this court, and the Special Leave Petition has also been
dismissed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the
appeals filed by the respondent / assessee in respect of the remand
proceedings. The remand was only consequent upon the decision of the
Tribunal in the earlier round to the effect that the proceedings under
Section 147 of the said Act were valid. Now, those proceedings have
been held to be invalid. Hence, the consequential remand proceedings
would be of no consequence. As such no interference is called for with
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of
law arises for our consideration.

5.      These appeals are dismissed.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

                                              VIBHU BAKHRU, J

MAY 21, 2013

ITA 246-247/2013                                                  Page 3 of 3
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions