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

Shri Sardar (Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 308/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/D.R
Section 148

…alone & none-else. [CIT v. Sohandevi Sadani [2007] 196 Taxation 707 (Raj.)], Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT 301 ITR 407(Bom.), Austin Engg. Co. Ltd. v.JCIT 207 Taxation 35(Guj.), Manjusha Estate (P.) Ltd. 214 Taxation 194 (Guj.), Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi)] (b) On going through prescribed Performa for proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, it is seen that against col.no. 8b, the remark offered by the A.O, states as 'assessed u/s 14-3(3) on 10/11/2010'. This is factually incorrect for the reason that as stated in para A above the regular assessment in this case has been completed u/s 143(3) of the A…

Mr. Krishna Kumar Pant, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…independent mind and conduct necessary investigations before issuing notice u/s 148. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following decisions:- • Raj kumar (C) HUF reported in 2016-TIOL-727-ITAT- Bang • Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) • SFIL Stock Broking reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del) • RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while recording the ‘reasons’ it was imperative upon the Ld. AO to independently examine whether there existed any “benefit” which is taxable as income in nature of perquisites. He submitted that existence of…

Mr. Sanjiv Narayan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5546/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…independent mind and conduct necessary investigations before issuing notice u/s 148. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following decisions:- • Raj kumar (C) HUF reported in 2016-TIOL-727-ITAT- Bang • Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) • SFIL Stock Broking reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del) • RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while recording the ‘reasons’ it was imperative upon the Ld. AO to independently examine whether there existed any “benefit” which is taxable as income in nature of perquisites. He submitted that existence of…

Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5513/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…independent mind and conduct necessary investigations before issuing notice u/s 148. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following decisions:- • Raj kumar (C) HUF reported in 2016-TIOL-727-ITAT- Bang • Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) • SFIL Stock Broking reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del) • RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while recording the ‘reasons’ it was imperative upon the Ld. AO to independently examine whether there existed any “benefit” which is taxable as income in nature of perquisites. He submitted that existence of…

Mr. J.S. Gujral, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5512/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…independent mind and conduct necessary investigations before issuing notice u/s 148. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following decisions:- • Raj kumar (C) HUF reported in 2016-TIOL-727-ITAT- Bang • Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) • SFIL Stock Broking reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del) • RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while recording the ‘reasons’ it was imperative upon the Ld. AO to independently examine whether there existed any “benefit” which is taxable as income in nature of perquisites. He submitted that existence of…

Neel Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6336/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ome. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions :- 1. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT of Hon’ble Delhi High Court 2. Meenakshi Overseas Vs. PCIT ITA No.692/2016 3. Signature Hotels (P) ltd. Vs. ITO of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 338 ITR 51 4. CIT Vs. Insecticides India Ltd. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 357 ITR 330 5. CIT Vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court ITA 9 ITA.No.6336/Del./2019 No.545/2015 6. So far as the merit of the case is concerned he submitted that to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the investor company and genuineness of the tr…

Ganapati Developers, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 68

…gement of Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of R. K. Arora & Sons (HUF) vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4444/Del/2014. In this case the Hon’ble Tribunal following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2011] 338 ITR 51 quashed the re-assessment proceedings wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held as under: “Held, allowing the petition, that the reassessment proceeding 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 lacs during the financial year 2002-03…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs DCIT, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/o Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, KLJ Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. PAN: AABCS2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…

Bhagwant Merchants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…applying 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" 7.3. 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…

Aero Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

ITA 2484/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ng of assessment is bad in law. t and hence the reopening of assessment is bad in law. 8.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del.), under similar circumstances has held as follows: under similar circumstances has held as follows:- “Section 147 of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment Income escaping assessment - General - Assessment year 2003 Assessment year 2003-04 - Information given by Director of Income Information given by Director of…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application filed by the assessee u/s 27 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 12(1)(1), M/S. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 430, 4Th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Aafca6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT 12(1)(1), M/s. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2nd Floor, 430, 4th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 PAN: AAFCA6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The…

M/S Shreyans Jain, HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 1602/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 147Section 250

…of assessment is bad in law" eopening of assessment is bad in law" 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as , reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as , reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: "For the A.Y. 2003 "For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted 04, the return of income of the assessee compa…

Subodh Chandra Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

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

ITA 2247/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…sing out of wrong facts. on surmises and conjectures arising out of wrong facts. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.) [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.) held as follows:- “ that the reason given by the assessee did not satisfy the re the reason given by the assessee did not satisfy the requirements of section quirements of section 147. The reasons and the information referred to were extremely scanty and 147. The reasons and the information referred to were extremel…

Subodh Chandra Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

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

ITA 2246/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…sing out of wrong facts. on surmises and conjectures arising out of wrong facts. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.) [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del.) held as follows:- “ that the reason given by the assessee did not satisfy the re the reason given by the assessee did not satisfy the requirements of section quirements of section 147. The reasons and the information referred to were extremely scanty and 147. The reasons and the information referred to were extremel…

Hubtown Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3963/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3963/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hubtown Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 5(1) Plaza Panchseel, A Wing, 5Th R. No.1928 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Floor, 501 Hughes Road, India Bldg, Nariman Point, Behind Dharam Palace, Mumbai-400021. Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca6191D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri S. Michael Jerald (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3963/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hubtown Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT CEN CIR 5(1) Plaza Panchseel, A Wing, 5th R. No.1928 19th Floor, Air Vs. Floor, 501 Hughes Road, India BLDG, Nariman Point, Behind Dharam Palace, Mumbai-400021. Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACA6191D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR) Revenue by: Shri S. Michael Jerald (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear…

Asit Kumar Patra, Serampur vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156(3)Section 250

…ould be re-opened. The fact is that the bank accounts do not belong to the assessee. This is accepted by the AO. No verification is done by the AO to the information received. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51, it is held that: “Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - General - Assessment year 2003-04 - Information given by Director of Income-tax (Investigation), that amount received by assessee from other company was nothing but accommodation entry and assessee was beneficiary, was not sufficient to reopen assessment when…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3189/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3189/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ward-22(1), House No. 5, Block A-31, Main New Delhi Shastri Gali, Maujpur, New Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1966J Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.01.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151(2)

…Atul 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). ITAT 3 S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Delhi in ITA No. 3751/Dei/2011 in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. ITO in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar in ITA No. 187/Del/2010/2015. 7. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The reason recorded provided by the A.O reads as under: Dat…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

…w" we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law" 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: 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 04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of 04, the return of income of the assessee…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

…w" we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law" 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 7.3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: 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 04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of 04, the return of income of the assessee…

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…already been framed under section 143(3). Even the nature of the credit is not mentioned in the reasons. No particulars of accommodation entries have been mentioned. He has relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Del.) He has submitted that reassessment is initiated on mere suspicion only. He has referred to page-1 of the paper book filed by the Departmental Representative in which the ACIT of the Investigation Wing has directed to issue notice under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after recording reasons. He has submitted that all the Inves…