361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd.

374 ITR 595Supreme Court of India2015#930 most cited
114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Spacewood Furnishers · section 153A · section 43(3) · search assessment · validity of order · departmental reliance · section 153D · 374 ITR 595 · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 153ASection 153DSection 119Section 132Section 142(2A)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 136section 43(3)section 193section 255(4)section 196section 65asanction under section 151section 144asection 151(1)section 151(2)section 142(2a)section 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd.

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3752/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3750/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3749/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3748/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8090/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8089/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7597/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7595/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) that "the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the taxpayer." and that "Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order ......." 20 I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 22. Under identical circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Mu…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 799/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…ies below erred in not providing the copy of reasons recorded even after specific request made by the appellant under the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 595. 15.The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the per…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 793/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…ies below erred in not providing the copy of reasons recorded even after specific request made by the appellant under the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 595. 15.The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the per…

M/S Kptcl, Hubli vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2301/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate and Shri Dilip, Advocate (Standing counsels)
Section 10Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)

…n of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on ITA No.2301 to 2340/B/2017 Page…

M/S Kptcl, Bangalore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2458/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Bangalore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2457/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Hassan vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2456/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Hassan vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2455/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Mysore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Banalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2454/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Mysore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2453/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…

M/S Kptcl, Bangalore Rural vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2452/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…Page 19 of 21 Karnataka High Court referred to in paragraph-21 of this order. He relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) Vs. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. 374 ITR 595(SC). In the first decision, the question arose in the context of validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and the Court had to examine as to whether the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that for challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding on change of opinion, it has to be v…