1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

394 ITR 146High Court2017#1174 most cited

What is 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Harikishan S. Virmani · DCIT · 394 ITR 146 · section 147 · section 148 · borrowed satisfaction · reopening beyond four years · section 143(3) assessment · investigation wing information · independent application of mind · reassessment validity

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 179

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 132Section 250Section 131Section 149

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 149(1)(b)section 18statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 770/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Lovely Promoters Private ACIT, Limited Central Circle, Vs. 47A 47A, 3rd Floor Zakaria Ajmer. Street, Kolkata-700073. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCL1338C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.) jktLo…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Udayan Grover v. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {ACIT – 26(3), BKC, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 PAN: ACLPG0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. R/O B- 4/43, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle -2 New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 Pan No.Aaacg3209Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 66Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT Vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. R/o B- 4/43, 2nd Floor, Central Circle -2 New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 PAN No.AAACG3209Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Date of hearing: 01/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferr…

Parshotambhai Naranbhai Gevariya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 569/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2016-17 Parshotambhai The Income Tax Naranbhai Gevariya, Officer, Ahmedabad Vs Ward-5(3)(1), PAN: AEDPG8088F Ahmedabad, (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 03-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 12-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 05-07- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1.…

Narmada Concast Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 33/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Narmada Concast Pvt. The DCIT, Limited Central Circle-1(1), Survey No. 159/160 Vs Ahmedabad Vill, Malpar, Gogha, Bhavnagar (Respondent) PAN: AAECN1728P (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARs. Revenue Represented: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 02-11-2023 Date of pronouncement : 03-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by…

Deepak Trambaklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 5036/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5036/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिधम/ Deepak Trambaklal Mehta Ito-18(2)(4) 502, „B‟ Wing, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Cadle Plaza, Kirti College (Lalbaug), Mumbai-400012. Lane, Prabhadevi, Dadar, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm9251C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Bhomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006- 07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “On Natural Justice: 1.1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48. Mumbai [The Cit(A)] Which In Turn Affirmed The Order Passed By A.Y.2006-07 The Learned Income Tax Officer - 18 (2)(4). Mumbai (The Ao) Is Had In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Since The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Is In Itself Void As The Same Is Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Bhomika Patel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5036/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिधम/ Deepak Trambaklal Mehta ITO-18(2)(4) 502, „B‟ Wing, 5th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Cadle Plaza, Kirti College (Lalbaug), Mumbai-400012. Lane, Prabhadevi, Dadar, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPM9251C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue by: Ms. Bhomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pro…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Mahendra H. Shah v. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/o. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 PAN: AAFPS0929R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Vimal Punmiya Department by : Smita Verma Date of hearing : 29.07.2021 Date of pronouncement : 27.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Mumbai [hereinafter…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…n the assessee’s case under consideration. Under the circumstances, the assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. We note that Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani, 394 ITR 146 (Guj-HC), on the similar facts quashed the reassessment proceedings. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “5.3 Thus from the reasons recorded, the reopening of the assessment is on the information/data supplied by the office of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad and the information received from the…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…n the assessee’s case under consideration. Under the circumstances, the assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. We note that Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani, 394 ITR 146 (Guj-HC), on the similar facts quashed the reassessment proceedings. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “5.3 Thus from the reasons recorded, the reopening of the assessment is on the information/data supplied by the office of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad and the information received from the…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…n the assessee’s case under consideration. Under the circumstances, the assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. We note that Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani, 394 ITR 146 (Guj-HC), on the similar facts quashed the reassessment proceedings. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “5.3 Thus from the reasons recorded, the reopening of the assessment is on the information/data supplied by the office of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad and the information received from the…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM I.T.A. No. 3171/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) M/s. Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., ACIT-10(3)(1) 19th Floor, Lotus Granduar Building R.No. 217, 2nd Floor Veera Desai Raod Extn., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Country Club, Andheri (W) M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACN1283H (Appellant) : Respondent) Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Appellant by : Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR Virtual Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2020 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, A…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. ACIT 4(2)(1) Ltd. 6th floor, Room no. 642, बिधम/ 308/382, 1st floor, NNS Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Building, Chira Bazar, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Kalabadevi, Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCV5319C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi,DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.02.2020 Date of Hea…

ACIT, C.C. - 3(2), Kolkata vs. Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1942/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2005-06

Section 147Section 148

…the AO in the reasons recorded has nowhere mentioned that there is “failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any information” and hence there reopening fails. Here I draw support from following Courts’ decisions:- a) Harikishanlala Sunderlal Virmani – 394 ITR 146 (Guj) b) Swarovski India (P) Ltd – 36 ITR 601 (Del) c) Global Signal Cables (I) (P) Ltd. – 368 ITR 609 (Del) Hence, the proceedings so initiated by the AO by issuing of notice u/s. 148 and the consequential order u/s. 147 cannot be upheld and hence there grounds of the appellant are allowed.” 4. Learned departmental representative fails to disput…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e DCIT, Central Circle-XXI, Kolkata without independently applying his mind. Therefore he submitted that reassessment proceedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e DCIT, Central Circle-XXI, Kolkata without independently applying his mind. Therefore he submitted that reassessment proceedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e DCIT, Central Circle-XXI, Kolkata without independently applying his mind. Therefore he submitted that reassessment proceedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e DCIT, Central Circle-XXI, Kolkata without independently applying his mind. Therefore he submitted that reassessment proceedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…matter further, including by gathering further information. He in fact is bound to do so. 40. Mrs. Suri placed strong reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani v. Dy. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 548/394 ITR 146. Firstly, in that case, the assessment was under Section 143 (3) whereas in the case before us, it was under Section 143 (1). The reasons furnished in that case and the finding of the court were referred to and relied upon by Mrs. Suri in extenso. It is only fair, therefore, that we set out both :— '3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted t…

Dhanvidhya Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.970/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 Dhanvidhya Impex P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4) F/2, Tushar Centre Ahmedabad. Statdium Circle Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacd 7729 E

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Richa Rastogi, Sr.DSR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nzil Dinesh Kumar Shah, 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC); ii) Sunrise Education Trust Vs. ITO (Exemption) 92 taxmann.com 74 (Guj); iii) Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar Vs. DCIT, 77 taxmann.com 293 (Guj)’ ITA No.970 /Ahd/2017 4 iv) Harikishan Sunderlal Virman Vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 146 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. He pointed out that after conclusion of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee fresh material was found indicating that some of the claims made by the assessee were incorrect which amounts to non-disclosure of facts fully and truly. 6. We ha…

Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6628/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 6628/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, Vs Acit, A-57, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Circle-34(1), New Delhi-110052 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ackpa3670L Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Fca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-12, New Delhi Dated 13.07.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 250(6) By The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer To Initiate Reopening & Reassessment Of The Case U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 5,96,177/- Made By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Treating Certain Share Transactions As Bogus. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Recognizing The Fact That The Client Code Modification (Ccm) Was Done To Rectify The Genuine Errors Held At The End Of Broker For Which The Assessee Was Not Responsible. 2 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal 5. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Even When The Ld. Ao Failed To Provide The Details Of The Transactions Where Client Code Was Modified. 6. Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The It Act, 1961. 7. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Delete Or Add Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Of The Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of Assessment Made U/S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment" " Coronation Agro Industries Lid v Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [(2017) 390 ITR 464 (Bom)]: " Harikishan Sunderlal Yirmani v Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [(2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj)]. (17) In view of the above discussions since in the instant case, reasons for resort to the reassessment provisions owe their genesis to a "reason to suspect" and not "reason to believe", in the absence of a live link, (which can at best be described as lenons or speculative) between the information which forms the basis for formation of t…