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

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

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

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

…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…

Mrs. Sonia Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

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

…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…

Mrs. Sonia Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

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

…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…

M/S. Hasanpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…e confirmation and information in original assessment proceedings. To support his contention, he referred the various case laws of the Delhi High Court by which the present case of the assessee is covered including the case of Signature Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 51. He further relied upon the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Delhi in which on the similar facts and circumstances the issue in dispute has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Kripa Builders and Promoters vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 304/Del/2013 (AY 2008-09) vide order dated 19.12.2014 in which Hotel Signatures Pvt. Ltd. decision (supra) was follo…

Touch Wood Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

…us issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and for initiation of re- assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 11. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO 338 ITR 51(Delhi) and CIT Vs. G. G. Pharma India Ltd. order dated 8/10/2015 in ITA No. 545/2015 submitted that the re-opening has to be quashed for the reason that such reasons cannot be based on any tangible material and while the reasons has been recorded without application of mind in mechanical manner then re-opening of assessment and initiation of proce…

M/S Mkm Finses P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

…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 11 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the object…

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

…which a reasonable person would have 8 Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. formed and belief that income had escaped assessment. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del) " Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom) " ITO Vs Maya Gupta in ITA No.3435/Del/2013 order dated 13.12.2013 " ITO Vs M/s Comero Leasing & Financial Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4281/Del/2010 order dated 14.08.2014 " ITO Vs M/s Shri Devesh Kumar in ITA No.2068/Del/2010 order dated 31.10.2014 " ITO Vs Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. in ITA No.28…

Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2008-09 Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1) C/O Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (Pan: Aakcs1233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…se 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:- 14 (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 objectio…

M/S. Mahavir Concast Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant

…id down under the provisions of sec. 148(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notice u/s. 148 is being issued.” 7. In support of the above submission, the Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: 8 i) Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2011) - 338 ITR 51 (Del.) ii) CIT vs. Rainee Singh (2011) - 330 ITR 417 (Del.) iii) Rawatmal Harakchand Vs. CIT - 129 ITR 346 (Cal.) 8. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with the submission that in the reasons recorded, name of the assessee as beneficiary from the entry provider has been specifically ment…

Shree Metal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shree Metal, Vs. Ito, 5487 Basti Harphool Singh, Ward 39(3), Sadar Thana Road, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aafdj4351C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Goyal, Adv. Department By: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Mainly Involving Two Issues. Firstly, As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings & The Reassessment Order Are Both Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Secondly, As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,38,147 On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 2. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Pointed Out That Issues Raised In The Present Appeal Is Fully Covered By The Decision Of Delhi Bench Of The 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shree Metal, vs. ITO, 5487 Basti Harphool Singh, Ward 39(3), Sadar Thana Road, New Delhi. Delhi. (PAN: AAFDJ4351C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Goyal, Adv. Department by: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 23 .03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 20:06.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on several grounds mainly involving two issues. Firstly, as to whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) was just…

Sh. Gurmeet Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…mentioning the information received, hence, the notice u/s. 148 is patently illegal. In this regard, he placed reliance of the various decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court including the decision in the case of Signatures Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del.) and stated that the present case is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, hence, the reopening is required to be quashed. 3 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR controverted the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and stated that the lower authorities have passed the well reasoned order which does not…

Sh. Rajat Shubra Chatterji, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Rajat Shubra Chatterji, Vs. Acit, C-502, Npsc Housing Society, Circle 37(1), Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aarpc5101F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pc Yadav,Adv. Department By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds:

…while recording 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 following decisions: i) Signature Hotel – 338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Sarthak Security -329 ITR 110 (Del.); iii) Ranee Singh – 330 ITR 417 (Del.); 5. The Learned AR submitted further that the reasons recorded are neither signed nor is there any date on which these were recorded. He 6 contended that the action taken by the Assessing Officer under sec. 147 is also not tenable for the simple reason that p…

G.G. Metal Udyog, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e 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.” 21 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 Dire…

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

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1) 144/2, Ans House, Ashram, Mathura New Delhi Road, New Delhi - 110 014 (Pan: Aaccb6652Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

…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, 17 the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2003-04 Acit, Vs. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., Circle-12(1), B-20/1, Wazirpur International New Delhi. Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcg1201H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 22:04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Raising The Issue As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.40,02,780 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Sec. 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credits.

…t case of non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer since similar figure have been repeated thrice against the same cheque No. dated 16.11.2002. He placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Signatures Hotel (P) Ltd., vs. ITO – (2011) – 338 ITR 51 (Del.); b) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO – 2010) – 329 ITR 110 (Del.); c) Pr. CIT vs. G& G Pharma India Ltd.- ITA 545/2015 – order dated 08.10.2015 (Del.); d) ITO vs. Rajat Export Imports (P) Ltd., - ITA No. 2820/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) – order dated 27.11.2015; e) Rasalika Trading & Investment Co.(P) Ltd., vs. ITO – ITA No. 3103/Del/201…

M/S. Rmg Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Rmg Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 15(1) (Formerly Known As Pine View New Delhi Construction & Traders P. Ltd.) 302, Elite House, 36, Community Centre, Kailash Colony Extn., New Delhi (Pan: Aaacg2886R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Joshi & Sh. Sanjay Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. Dr

…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. Th…

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

…ndra Kumar & Co. 271 ITR 337 (MP) iv) CIT v Subboji Rao Ch. 355 ITR 320 (Kar) Proposition 6: Approval granted by CIT is mechanical approval and is without application of mind and therefore, order u/s 142(2A) is unsustainable i) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del) ii) United Electricals Co. (P) Ltd. v CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT 300 ITR 403 (SC”) iii) 16 The learned special counsel Shri Dilip Shivpuri for the revenue on the other hand contended that submissions of the appellant are not maintainable. It was contended that order u/s 142(2A) of the Act was not an appealable order an…

Karshni Metal Store, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…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 Director…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, Ward-12(4), 17, 3Rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aabch2336L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, Ward-12(4), 17, 3rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi PAN:AABCH2336L (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing 23/12/2015 Date of pronouncement 18/03/2016 Appellant by: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Revenue by: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, Sh. Sahil Mehta, CA O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 23.01.2009 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-…

M/S. Arvind Nath Seth & Sons (HUF), Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri.I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiarvind Nath Seth & Songs (Huf) Ito, 101, Shanti Niketan, Ward-1(1), Vs. Shivaji Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aabha8387F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…mined any evidence after e information received from Investigation Wing and reopen the assessment. He submitted that such a case of reopening is not valid in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del]] and also Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA No.545/2015 dated 8th October 2015. He further submitted that information received by the AO are extremely scanty and there is no reference of any documents, or statements or material or evidence that prima face proves unaccounted investment made by the assessee…