109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT v. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd.

155 CTR 538Supreme Court of India1999#10457 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Judgments citing 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT v. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ation) as per third party (Revenue Audit party) The reopening is otherwise valid being based on third party (Revenue audit party) also as per settled law as under. (i) CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/ [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/ [1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC)- "Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law" (ii) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee on 9 March, 2015 (ITAT Delhi)…

J.D. SONS STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…preme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 16 CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. M9991 103 Taxman 294 (SO/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law. 17 ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Bro…

SUNIL KANAYALAL GAMBANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1179/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…mann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). Relying on the above case-laws, the Ld. DR submits that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be conf…

THE GITA EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7441/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Agrawal & Hon’Ble Smt. Suchitra Kamblethe Gita Education Vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Society, C/O Kapil Goel Ward, Ghaziabad Adv F-26/124 Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan-Aaaat9753G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…t does not mean that such reasons are to be communicated along with notice itself; very notice will not provide a cause of action for assessee to file writ petitions. 15. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd.[1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) (Copy enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law 16. PranawaLeafin (P…

LEXPLOSION SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 15(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7762/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 17. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO and others [236 ITR 34] 18. R. K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT Vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 8 20. ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. Yuvraj Vs. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 13. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orde…

SHISHYA EDUTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7726/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 17. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO and others [236 ITR 34] 18. R. K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT Vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 8 20. ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. Yuvraj Vs. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 13. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orde…

M/S. ASIAN COLOUR COATED ISPAT LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/ [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 23. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 34] 24. R.K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 25. CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 26. ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30(SC) 27. Yuvraj V. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 28. Paramount Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017- TIOL-376-HC-DEL-IT) 29. Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017-TIOL-126-HC-AHM-IT) 30. Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani Vs. ITO…

M/S. ASIAN COLOUR COATED ISPAT LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/ [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 23. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 34] 24. R.K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 25. CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 26. ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30(SC) 27. Yuvraj V. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 28. Paramount Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017- TIOL-376-HC-DEL-IT) 29. Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017-TIOL-126-HC-AHM-IT) 30. Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani Vs. ITO…

BILLO,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. Pan: Bakpb9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…eme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 16. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [I999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC/[999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers…

SUNIL AGARWAL,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…ere can be omission and failure on the part of Hie assessee to disclose material facts fairly and truly during the course of the assessment proceedings. [Para 42] 4. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law. 5. CIT Vs Kiranbhai Jamnadas S…