ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction, and lacked proper application of mind, as the information from the third-party search did not directly correlate with the assessee's transactions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information from a search on the 'Dishman Group', alleging the assessee received accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially suspected non-genuine commission expenses but later made additions for alleged unexplained unsecured loans.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information from a third-party search and seizure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das721 citing103 ITR 437 · 1976 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Paramjit Kaur106 citing311 ITR 38 · 2008 · HC
- Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra75 citing1 SCC 193 · 1990
- Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.30 citing1 SCC 496 · 1976
- Corporation v. ITO3 citing168 Taxmann.com 477 · 2024
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member The above captioned four appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] all dated 30.01.2024 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in respect of the above assessment years. Since issue raised in all the appeals are ident
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026