5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court

392 ITR 444High Court2017#969 most cited

What is 5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court authority for?

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Paramount Communication · Paramount Communication · section 147 · section 148 · tangible material · reason to believe · application of mind · borrowed satisfaction · bogus LTCG · escaped assessment · entry operator · beyond four years

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 409

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 147(a)non application of mindsection 151(1)approval under section 151beyond four yearsborrowed satisfactionentry operatorpaper companylive linktangible materialbogus ltcg

Judgments citing 5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 19, New Delhi

ITA 2284/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…at information regarding bogus sale by the Assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on the revenue authorities are intangible material to record to initiate valid assessment proceedings as held in PCIT vs. Paramount Communications Pvt. Ltd (2017) 392 ITR 444. Similar ratio has been laid down in the case of in A.G.R Investment Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and anr. [2011] 333 ITR 146 and in the case of Avirat Stat Homes Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis of…

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 19, Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…at information regarding bogus sale by the Assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on the revenue authorities are intangible material to record to initiate valid assessment proceedings as held in PCIT vs. Paramount Communications Pvt. Ltd (2017) 392 ITR 444. Similar ratio has been laid down in the case of in A.G.R Investment Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and anr. [2011] 333 ITR 146 and in the case of Avirat Stat Homes Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis of…

Ajay Garg, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Circle Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/DDN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

…## IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN "DB" BENCH: DEHRADUN # BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #### [THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE] ## ITA No.200/DDN/2024 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] | Ajay Garg,<br>C/o-Kapil Goel, Adv.,<br>F-26/124,<br>Sector-7,<br>Rohini, Delhi-110085.<br>PAN-AIBPG3790L | vs | ACIT,<br>Central Circle,<br>Dehradun,<br>Uttarakhand-248001 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------| | APPELLANT…

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…, Ld. CIT(DR) opposed the aforesaid request of the Ld. AR and supported the orders of the AO and also relied upon several judicial pronouncements which have been reproduced hereunder: “CASE LAWS RELIED UPON: 1. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION (P) LTD VS PCIT DELHI HC 392 ITR 444 SUPREME COURT 250 (TM) 100 2. SC JOHNSON PRODUCTS VS ACIT DELHI AC 400 ITR 426 3. GUJARAT AMBUJA GUJ HC 250 TAXMANN 482 4. ARADHNA ESTATE (P) LTD GUJ HC 254 TMI 5. V3S INFRATECH LTD VS ACIT ITAT DELHI 104 TAXMANN.COM 403 6. JMD GLOBAL (P) LTD VS PCIT DELHI HC 426 ITR 394 7. EXPERSION DEVELOPERS (P) LTD (MECHANICAL APPROVAL) DELHI HC 422 ITR 355 8…

Universal Drinks, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-42(1), New Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…at information regarding bogus sale by the Assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on the revenue authorities are intangible material to record to initiate valid assessment proceedings as held in PCIT vs. Paramount Communications Pvt. Ltd (2017) 392 ITR 444. Similar ratio has been laid down in the case of in A.G.R Investment Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and anr. [2011] 333 ITR 146 and in the case of Avirat Stat Homes Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moderate Credit Corporation Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal

ITA 6223/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147

…pplying the law to the facts of the case. 15. The ld DR relied upon the following decisions:- i. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd (2017-TIOL-253- HON'BLE SUPREME COURT -IT) ii. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd (2017) 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) 392 ITR 444. iii. Aradhna Estate P Ltd Vs. DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 iv. Pushpak Bullion P Ltd s. DCIT 85 taxmann.com 84 v. Ankit Financial Services Ltd Vs. DCIT 78 taxmann.com 58 vi. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd Vs. DCIT 83 taxmann.com 82 vii. Ankit Agrochem P Ltd Vs. JCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 45 16. He further referred the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Hig…

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…YPIPES LTD VS DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. Income-tax Officer, reported in [2011] 335 ITR 234 (Guj)" 1. In the judgement in the case of Principal CIT vs. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has held as under- "8......... While it is true that the court is conscious that the reassessment notice should not have been routinely issued, at the same time, the nature of power is wide enough that when there an escapement of income and the Revenue has information ruling that this escapement is also relat…

Vikram Agrawal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 321/NAG/2023[2017 18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.319/Nag./2023 ITA no.320/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA no.321/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Vikram Radheshyam Agrawal 159, Bhandara Road ……………. Appellant Pardi, Kalamna Market Yard S.O. Nagpur 440 035 PAN – AIJPA7310C v/s National Faceless Assessment Centre ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 05/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.…

Vikram Agrawal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4 (4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 320/NAG/2023[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.319/Nag./2023 ITA no.320/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA no.321/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Vikram Radheshyam Agrawal 159, Bhandara Road ……………. Appellant Pardi, Kalamna Market Yard S.O. Nagpur 440 035 PAN – AIJPA7310C v/s National Faceless Assessment Centre ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 05/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.…

Vikram Agrawal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 319/NAG/2023[2015 16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.319/Nag./2023 ITA no.320/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA no.321/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Vikram Radheshyam Agrawal 159, Bhandara Road ……………. Appellant Pardi, Kalamna Market Yard S.O. Nagpur 440 035 PAN – AIJPA7310C v/s National Faceless Assessment Centre ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 05/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.…

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…ard to that appellant that they are engaged in reverse trades and creating fictitious loss. On similar facts, the relevance of information as a material has been considered byHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Paramount Communication P Ltd (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Del) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2017] [TIOL-253-SC-IT] and the relevant observations are extracted as under: x x x x 6.3 It is plain from reading the impugned order that how the appellant was involved in reverse trading with the parties viz. Narayan Capital Services Private Limited and Padam Raj Agarwal HUF at substantial price diff…

Agl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4692/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4692/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2010-11) M/S Agl Technologies Ltd., S-206, First Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeca-1070-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate0, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anuj Jain, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Solitary Ground Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.1 Crore U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Jain, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नवीन चं", लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.4692/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2010-11) M/s AGL Technologies Ltd., S-206, First Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAECA-1070-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate0, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Anuj Jain, Chartered Accountant "ितवा…

Ags Developers Pvt Ltd, Jasola Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

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

…action and merely because notice was issued on very next day of receipt of letter it did not mean that ITO did not apply his mind to the information. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT 392 ITR 444(Del) has held that the information by the investigation or the other authority is valid material for initiating reassessment proceedings. This judgment of Delhi High Court has been approved in by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 250 Taxmann 100 (SC). Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a recent decision delivered on 13.09.2022 in the case of PCIT 1 Kolkata Vs…

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA 286/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ssee was one of such beneficiary, Assessing Officer was justified in reopening assessment Held, yes [Para 12] [in favour of revenue In another case the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-7 vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd. reported in (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) has held that the information received from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was tangible material to reopen the case as per the provision of section 147 of the Act. In that case the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from DRI The assessments were quashed by the ITAT by holding that the reasons re…

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

…rts that the information received from Investigation Wing alone is a sufficient ground for reopening of cases under section 148 and has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) that information forwarded by DRI is tangible material to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on said matter was dismissed as reported at (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 300. The Ld. CIT(A) then has relied upon the following judgments of High Courts (i) Pushpa Uttam Chand Mehta Vs. ITO (2022) 139 ta…

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…e contentions relied upon various case laws as under: - • Rakesh Gupta Vs. CIT [93 taxmann.com 271 (P&H)]; • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [236 ITR 4 (SC)]; • ITO Vs. Purshottam Das Bangur [224 ITR 362 (SC)]; • Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT [392 ITR 444 (Del)]. 11. Coming to sanction of approval u/s 151 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Ld. DR submits that there is no infirmity in the approval/sanction granted by the Competent Authority u/s 151(1) of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that the statute does not lay down any manner or format in which the approval is to be granted. It is als…

Nahta Trading Co., Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv. )For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…that the AO must have 'tangible material' on the basis of which AO can form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) has held that Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. The SLP against the decision has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT VS Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 8…

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 375/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private ACIT, Limited, Vs. Circle-01, Jaipur 205-206, C. K. House, IInd Floor, Bichun Market, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPCS 6518 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh…

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…rves to be set aside. Since we have held that the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. 12. Before parting, the ld. DR has relied upon various judicial decisions in 148 taxmann.com, 440, 392 ITR 444 and 250 Taxmann.com 102, which have been duly considered by us but found to be not relevant on the peculiar facts of the case in hand. 12. In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 71/DEL/2021 is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2023. [ASTHA CHANDRA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Da…

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Gupta Vs ITO [taxmann.com 383][Sq[2014 227 Taxman 374 [SC, Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd Vs ITO [236 ITR 341][Sq, Ankit Financial Services Ltd Vs DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 [Gujarat], and Thakorbhai Maganbhai Pael Vs ITO [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 [Delhi]/[2017] 392 ITR 444 [Delhi] held that reopening u/s 147 read with section 148 is justified and AO has correctly assumed jurisdiction. b. The ground and contention related to the issue of notice uls 143[2] has been adjudicated vide para 5.1, 5.2 [Page 6]. In this regard reliance has been taken by the Ld CIT[A] on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ca…