Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Wudstay Travels Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download. Already Upgraded? Login here to access.
Wudstay Travels Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Delhi ITAT quashed reassessment u/s 147/148, holding that approval beyond 3 years must come from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, not from a mere Principal Commissioner. Assessee had not filed return for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information about time deposits & interest income, AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 01-06-2022 and framed assessment adding ₹3.10 crore u/s 69 along with minor additions. ITAT noted that the sanction for reopening was obtained only from the Principal Commissioner, though notice was issue...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Defect in Section 143(2) Notice Format Is Curable Under Section 292B: ITAT Bangalore Cash Loan Enforceable Under NI Act Despite Section 269SS Breach: SC Kolkata ITAT Quashes Assessment as Section 143(2) Notice Was Without Jurisdiction BSNL VRS-2019 Ex-gratia Fully Exempt Under Section 10(10B): Surat ITAT Patna ITAT Deletes Search Additions Based on Retracted Statements & Estimates View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031