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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Viney Auto Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Cross Objection stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Dcit, Circle-17(1) Vs. M/S Viney Auto Pvt. Ltd. Cr Building, G-975, Dsidc, Narela Industrial New Delhi Complex, Bhorgah, Delhi-40 (Pan: Aaacv0446L) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 58/Del/2010 (In Ita No. 291/Del/2010) Assessment Year: 2000-01

…circumstances, the conclusion reached by the ITAT cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises. 15. The appeal is dismissed.” ITA No.291/Del./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 10 (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 objections. Th…

Shraddha Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Gargita No. 3280/Del. 2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

…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:- (a) 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ime International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

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

…ning order from invalidity . 12 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 objections. T…

M/S. Paramount Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2001-02

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2001-02 Paramount Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, ED Block, Flat No.55, Ward-14(1), Pitampura, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN: AABCP7313F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gurmeet Singh, CA Department By : Shri Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08. 09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2015 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi, dated 21.08.2013 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The facts in brie…

Jyotsna Sukumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

…aterials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the as…

Jyotsna Sukumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

…aterials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the as…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…l Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 3751/Del/2011 in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. ITO and on the decision rendered by ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar. 8. Ld. DR submitted that the notice us/ 148 was issued after due…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…l Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 3751/Del/2011 in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. ITO and on the decision rendered by ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar. 8. Ld. DR submitted that the notice us/ 148 was issued after due…

ITO, Faridabad vs. Sh. Vinod Khatter, Faridabad

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…e further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) and also upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 5. Ld. DR on the other hand stated that at the time of issue of notice u/s 148 only a tentative or prima facie belief regarding the escapement of income is 4 ITO vs. Vinod Khatter required. No conclusive finding with regard to escapement of income is required. The Ld. DR submitted that information was received from the investigation…

Sh. Kamal Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…of Apex Court in GKN Drive Shaft 259 ITR Page 19 thus nullifying entire proceedings. He further 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. 5 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find that the AO has recorded the reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment as under. The same is attached with the Paper Book filed by the assessee. “Reasons for the belief…

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

In the result, both the Assessees’ Appeal No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…essment 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 decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 338 ITR 51, Insectici (India) Ltd. (supra), 357 ITR 330 and ClT vs. Atul Jain and Vin Jain, 299 ITR 383 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. Hence, he requested that the reassessment p…

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

In the result, both the Assessees’ Appeal No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…essment 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 decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 338 ITR 51, Insectici (India) Ltd. (supra), 357 ITR 330 and ClT vs. Atul Jain and Vin Jain, 299 ITR 383 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. Hence, he requested that the reassessment p…

CIT vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd

…ITA No. 643/2011 Page 1 of 12 $~17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 643/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus INDIA TERMINAL CONNECTOR SYSTEM LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Ashwani Taneja & Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advocates.…

ITA 643/2011 vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd

…ITA No. 643/2011 Page 1 of 12 $~17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 643/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus INDIA TERMINAL CONNECTOR SYSTEM LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Ashwani Taneja & Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advocates.…