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

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. R/O B- 4/43, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle -2 New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 Pan No.Aaacg3209Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 66Section 68

…to establish the vital link between the reasons and the evidence, and that this vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary re-opening of a concluded assessment"; in CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), (Pr.CIT v India Business Network Ltd.) and Pr. CIT v G&G Pharma India Ltd. (ITA No. 545/2015) Delhi High Court order dated 08.10.2015 it has been held that "mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that A.O. had independently applied h…

Hartron Sase Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 1064/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…fore the same may kindly be quashed. The ld. AR has placed reliance on various judgments and others including judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Shri Atul Jain 299 ITR 383(Delhi), Signature Hotels 3 P. Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) and judgment in the case of CIT vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi), in support of above legal contentions. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the above submissions of ld. counsel of assessee and submitted that the copy of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings available a…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…hat the assessee had filed a return of income for the said AY. The ACIT has also not applied his mind. No satisfaction has been recorded by the Ld.ACIT. Only an approval is given. Thus in our view the reopening is bad in law (Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) followed). (iv) ACIT vs. Devesh Kumar (ITAT Delhi)dt. 31.10.2014 Reopening solely on the basis of information received from the investigation wing & without independent application of mind is void. (v) Unique Metal Industries vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015 Reopening solely on the basis of information received from anot…

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…, has held that where authorities appeared to have concurred with reasons for reopening assessment without applying their mind, reopening of assessment would be invalid Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO dated 21.07.2011 [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.); 60 DTR 0030 has held that it was apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. The Assessing Officer accepted the plea on the basis of vague information in a mechanical manner. The Commissioner also acted on the same basis by mechanically giving his…

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

…urisdiction for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. 17. The counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance on another decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Signature Hotel vs ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) and submitted that the AO must have “reason to believe” that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it is mandatory for the AO that the “reason to believe” are required to be recorded by the AO and if the belief is not bona fide or based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information, then the same cannot be regarded as ma…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…curities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his action as to reason to believe on the basis of AIR information and quoted the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (1999, 236 ITR 34), which in our humble opinion, is distinguishable as…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…curities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his action as to reason to believe on the basis of AIR information and quoted the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (1999, 236 ITR 34), which in our humble opinion, is distinguishable as…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s Pebble Bay Developers tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2nd floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. PAN No. AACCG 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR Assessee by : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, AR Date of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date of pronouncement : 21/10/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This…

M/S. Raj Metal Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 639/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

…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 as 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…

Mesers Shree Bhagwati Cotton Traders, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…sessment. Without analysing and forming a prima facie opinion on the basis of material produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment" (ii)Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO, 338 ITR 51 (DEL) , and it has been held in para 14 of the judgment as under:- “In the present case also, the AO simply acted upon the information received from the Investigation Wing and did not apply his own mind. Therefore, the reopening u/s 147 by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing w…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Bathinda vs. Mesers Shree Bhagwati Cotton Traders, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…sessment. Without analysing and forming a prima facie opinion on the basis of material produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment" (ii)Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO, 338 ITR 51 (DEL) , and it has been held in para 14 of the judgment as under:- “In the present case also, the AO simply acted upon the information received from the Investigation Wing and did not apply his own mind. Therefore, the reopening u/s 147 by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing w…

Measage Bhai Industries Private Limited, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…s. G & G Pharma Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The copy of the judgment is placed in the judgment set pages 46 to 51 12 Bhai Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO III. Judgment in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Anr (2011) 338 ITR 51 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, IV. Judgment in the case of Sh. Gopal Sharan vs. Ito in ITA no. 51/Asr/2012 dated 05.09.2012 (Amritsar ITAT). The copy of the judgment is placed in judgment set pages 125 to 132 V. Judgment in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Wani vs. Ito in ITA no. 372/Asr/2009 (Amritsar ITAT). The copy of the judgment is placed in judgment s…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…unsel Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Private Limited vs Private Limited vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi Delhi). According to ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 10 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys the Ld. counsel the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said cas…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…unsel Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Private Limited vs Private Limited vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi Delhi). According to ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 10 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys the Ld. counsel the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said cas…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…unsel Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Private Limited vs Private Limited vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi Delhi). According to ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 10 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys the Ld. counsel the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said cas…

Anirudh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1167/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ng on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind is invalid:- i) Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) ii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. (2009) 329 ITR 110 iii) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) iv) RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann. Com 348 (Del) v) Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (5) TMT 1428 (Del) vi) G&G Pharma India Ltd. ITA 545/2015 (Del) 6.4 The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the information received by the Ld. AO from Investigation Wing is the just and valid reason record…

Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2279/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 1/04/2022
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…I.T.A. No. 2279/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., ACIT C/o. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] PAN : AACCK3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent N o n e; िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. R.; राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by : 1/04/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 29/04/2022 उ"…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…itiation of proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act are hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 27.11. Further in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del) it was held as under: “5. Before dealing with the facts of the case, we may notice some judgments of the Supreme Court when proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act can be initiated on statements made by third person 49 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. on the account of "accommodation entry". In ITO ver…

Shri Shish Pal Singh, Jalanhdhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Jalandhar

ITA 309/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)

…hich were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.” iii) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 / 338 ITR 51 (Delhi):- “15. The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure, which has been quoted above. The annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie s…

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.7303/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Priya Diamonds The ACIT, Pvt. Ltd., Delhi – 005 Central Circle – 25, PAN AAGCP1547G vs. C/o. Anil Jain DD & Jhandewalan, Co. 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, KG Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M. This appeal filed by the Asses…