How many judgments cite 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta (363 ITR 625), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115AD, Section 133(6), Section 139(1), Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(2).

395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta

363 ITR 625High Court2014#6072 most cited

What is 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta authority for?

The decision in CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta stands for the proposition that if sales tax department findings have not been provided to the assessee, and the assessee has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine parties, and the assessee's books have not been rejected with sales and declared profits being reasonable, then no addition to income is liable to be made.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta · 395 ITR 677 · opportunity to cross examine · hawala dealers · sales tax department findings · books not rejected · sales accepted · reasonable profits · no addition

Sections most often in play

Section 115AD Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 147

Issues it is cited on

sanction under section 151 section 151(1)sanctioning authority approval under section 151 beyond four years live link share capital and share premium section 292b section 10a borrowed satisfaction tangible material income escaping assessment

Judgments citing 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT v. Jyoti Prakash Dutta

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…f Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.. Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that "reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid." In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-04 vs. M/S Ganesh Ganga Insvestments Pvt Ltd

ITA/25/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…n'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014) 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148…

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…data other than what the assessee had produced at the time of original assessment u/s 143(3). Thus, clearly there is a change of opinion. The Division Bench of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, in the verdict given in CIT vs Vardhman Industries (2014) 363 ITR 625 (Raj) (paper book pg. no. 119-121), while reiterating the principle that the words ‘reason to believe' did not admit of conferment of arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion. The Court held at para 12: "It is no longer res integra that a mere change in the opinion of the AO after completion, of the a…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. M/S. Roland Educational and Charitable Trust

ITA/25/2022HC Orissa09 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. Parbati Mohapatra

ITA/19/2022HC Orissa08 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice 25 ITA.No.4183/Del./2019 M/s. Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi. based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Win…

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…f Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

…TR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 79 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 99 ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, Sr. D.R

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

…Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 81 ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC Township P. Ltd., Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 710/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas. CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…passed by the A.O. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd., 343 ITR 183 held that “re- assessment to correct an error in assessment, re-assessment is not valid.” The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vardhaman Industries 363 ITR 625 held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible material. Notice based on documents already on record to re-assessment not valid.” The Ld. CIT(A) has given specific finding that assessee produced complete records on all these items and A.O. 6 ITA.No.710/Del./2017 M/s. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi. examined the issues at the original assessm…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…oceedings under section 148 was quashed.” Similar view have been taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel Pvt. Ltd., DCIT & Another [2018] 406 ITR 353 (All.). The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.) held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible material. Notice based on documents already on record, not valid.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Techman Buildwell P. Ltd., vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 771 (Del.) held that “Assessing Officer’s omission was the sole basis of notice under section 148. Notice under section 148 n…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…/s. Behat Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi. Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 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 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…62 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 152 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 o…

Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parmit M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…f Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of th…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR

Section 143(3)

…. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Principal CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), CIT vs. Jyoti Prakash Dutta [2014] 367 ITR 568 (Bom); CIT vs. Vardhman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj); CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal.). The ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that findings of the Sales Tax Department have not been given to the assessee and the assessee has not been provided any opportunity to cross examine the said hawala dealers. The ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted…

Ulo Systems Llc, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 285/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)

Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…362 ITR 693, observed that the note already filed with the return of income disclosing nature of capital receipt, no other tangible material found, therefore notice u/s 148 was quashed. 10. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vardhman Industries 363 ITR 625 held that reasons u/s 148 of the Act must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice passed on documents already on record is not valid. 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadhna Nitro Chem Ltd. Vs. ACIT & others ACIT 368 ITR 505 (Bom) held as under:- “ Where assessments are sought to be opened beyond a period of four years from…

Ulo Systems Llc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 5278/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)

Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D