How many judgments cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO?

295 judgments on BharatTax cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO (338 ITR 51), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 142(1).

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

338 ITR 51High Court2011#263 most cited

What is 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO authority for?

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

295

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO · section 147 · section 148 · reassessment notice · vague reasons · borrowed satisfaction · escaped income

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 18 section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

M/S. Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4520/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 4520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 181-C, Western Avenue, Sainik Ward-12(4), Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0276J Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 4520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 181-C, Western Avenue, Sainik Ward-12(4), Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH0276J Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, CAs Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. Fo…

M/S Zurassic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the legal ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6398/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2006-07 Zurassic Properties Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-18(4), Ltd., New Delhi. Shreekunj, Opp. Dabar Farms, Bijwasan Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacz 0068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. Assessee(S) By : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151(2)

…Officer does not acquire any jurisdiction to assess or reassess the matter in the present case. The reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) where the relevant decision is reproduced hereinunder: “Held, allowing the petition, that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs during financial year 2002-03 as stated in the annexure.…

M/S. Baldev Arya HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the legal ground of the assessee, i

ITA 1955/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…er does not acquire any jurisdiction to make assessment / re-assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act. The reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) where the relevant decision is reproduced hereinunder: ITAs No.1955/Del/2014 5 “Held, allowing the petition, that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs during financial year 2002-03 a…

M/S. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equip. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…case of the assessee for the asstt. year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We draw our support from the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the following cases:- (i) Signature Hotels (P)_ Ltd. vs. ITO and another reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) has under similar circumstances as follows:- “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections…

Ratnagiri Stainless P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4463/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. v. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AADCR2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N.M. Porwal Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 02-03-2017…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 681/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 681/Del/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, M/S Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward 2(4), Vs. Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, Ip New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aadca1156B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 282/Del/2015 In I.T.A. No. 681/Del/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Ankur Products Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Ward 2(4), Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, Ip New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aadca1156B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 681/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/s Ankur Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward 2(4), VS. Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, IP New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (PAN: AADCA1156B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. NO. 282/DEL/2015 IN I.T.A. No. 681/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S ANKUR PRODUCTS PVT. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LTD., VS. Ward 2(4), Flat No. 219, Ashirwad Enclave, IP New Delhi Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 (PAN: AADCA1156B) (…

M/S. Maverick Electronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 Maveric Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward No.6(3) C/O M/S D Ostwal & Associates, Fca New Delhi 303-304, Dhaka Chambers 2068/38, Naiwala Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005 Pan: Aaach 9596 B

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, C.A. and Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 151(1)

…pplying the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in G&G Pharma India (supra) we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law.” 3.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows. “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objectio…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. O.J. Securities (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s C

ITA 3464/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2001-02 Ito, Ward 13(4) Vs. Oj Securities P Ltd. R.No.219, Cr Bldg. 1091 Js Place, 320 Delhi Gate Bazar New Delhi Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Pan: Aaaco 0994 L Cross Objection 292/Del/09 (In Ita No. 3464/Del/2009) A.Y. 2001-02 M/S Oj Securities P Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 13(4) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sri Somil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…pplying the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in G&G Pharma India (supra) we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. 6(a) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows. “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objecti…

Sapra Metal Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2910/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anil Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ok containing pages 1 to 94 having the copy of Written Submissions; Reasons for the belief recorded before initiating proceedings u/s. 147/148; copy of judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Signature Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 8(4) and Anr. 2011 338 ITR 51; copy of judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT-II vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285; Copy of judgment in the matter of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, Ward 7(3) (2010) 329 ITR 110; copy of order passed by the SMC-2, ITAT, New Delhi in the matter of Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO in ITA No. 1372/Del/2015; copy of judgmen…

Dr. Kamal Kant Pandey, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2429/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 28

…ing his reasons. The Learned AR referred page Nos. 26 of the paper book where copy of the reasons to belief recorded by the Assessing Officer has been made available. The Learned AR placed reliance on the Page 5 of 8 following decisions: i) Signature Hotel - 338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Sarthak Security -329 ITR 110 (Del.); iii) Ranee Singh - 330 ITR 417 (Del.):” 6. The brief facts of the case and the conclusive part are reproduced here in below with the said case:- “On having gone through the decisions cited above especially the decision of Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (supra), we find tha…

Shri Gaurav Chopra, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 133/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Shri Gaurav Chopra, Vs Income Tax Officer, 3-C/6, New Rohtak Road, Ward-33(1), New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipc2912D Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca & Sh. P. K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

…i Dua 219 CTR 183 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Khosla in ITA No. 838/2008 (Del.) " Smt. Smriti Media Vs UOI 339 ITR 37 (Cal.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) 3 Gaurav Chopra " CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del.) " Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs Suren International (P.) Ltd. 357 ITR 24 (Del.) " Smt. Meera Kapoor Vs CIT in ITA No. 1395/2008 (Del.) " Smt. Anjali Dua Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4827/Del/2004 " Ranjeet Singh Vs ACIT 120 ITR 517 (Del.) " ITO Vs Krishan Kumar Gupta 16 DTR 1 (Del.) " ITO Vs Shri Karan Sawhney in ITA No. 2098/Del/2009 " ITO Vs Rajender Prasad Gupta 135 TTJ…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…e assessment purely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. Therefore, the assessment reopened u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act was not valid. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) " Jagdish Karnany Vs ITO 155 Taxman 35 (Del) " Mrs. Amina Rasool Vs ITO 161 TTJ 405 (Asr.) " Aksar Wire Products (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1167/Del/2015 order dated 11.12.2015 " Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) " CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del.) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Me…

Esprit Finco Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1834/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…6]; Genius Electricals & Electronics Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No.3623/Del/2014 dated 22.04.2016]; CIT vs SFIL Stockbroking Co. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del.); Sarthak Securities Company PVt.Ltd. vs ITO [2009] 329 ITR 110; and Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.), it was submitted that the assessment deserves to be quashed. 5. On merits, it was again submitted that the assessee has brought on record that the evidences from each of the shareholders which included confirmations, copy of ITR, balance sheet, assessment order etc. has been made available and the AO has not controverted these facts eit…

M/S. K.K. Arora & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 Appeals of the assesses stand allowed

ITA 2960/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…ssment u/s 153A. It indicates that the AO has mechanically recorded the reasons and issued the notice without applying his own mind. Therefore, on these facts, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 338 ITR 51, Insectici (India) Ltd. (supra), 357 ITR 330 would be squarely applicable because the information on the basis of which the AO had initiated proceedings under section 147 was vague and uncertain as may be evidenced from the relevant para of these judgments. He further stated that the issue in dispute is also squarely covered by the ITAT, Delhi d…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…the case of the assessee for the asstt. year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We draw our support from the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the following cases:- (i) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO and another reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) has under similar circumstances as follows:- A notice uls.148 can be quashed if the/belief is not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer, when he recorded the reasons. There should be a…

M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 86/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr6935N Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.11.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/s Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR6935N Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in thi…

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3566/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. SABHARWAL, ADVFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…the assessee to go through the entire gamut of proceedings. It is totally unwarranted. Resultantly, the initiation of proceedings under s. 147 and issuance of notice under s. 148 are hereby quashed.” 11. Similarly in Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) the Hon’ble Court has also quashed the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the AO did not independently apply his mind to the information received from the Director of Income Tax (Inv.). The relevant observation of the Court reads as under:- “The first sentence of the reasons states that information had been received from Directo…

Sh. Satya Sheel Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2886/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. RS Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

M/S. Shruti Fastners Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1946/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NK Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 68

…ening order from invalidity . 14. In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the ITAT cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises. 15. The appeal is dismissed.” (b) Signature Hotels (P)_ Ltd. vs. ITO and another reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) has under similar circumstances as follows:- “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objection…