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

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4734/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4733/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4732/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4731/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4730/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4729/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

…with a direction to decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the legal grounds relying on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444. The ld. AR has not seriously made any arguments in support of his contention against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 ITA Nos. 4729 to 4734/Del/2018 4 Punit Jain of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to this extent and therefore, ground no. 1 in these appeals is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the merits of the…

The Gita Education Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7441/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Agrawal & Hon’Ble Smt. Suchitra Kamblethe Gita Education Vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Society, C/O Kapil Goel Ward, Ghaziabad Adv F-26/124 Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan-Aaaat9753G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…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. PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd.[2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court 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 2. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd.Vs DCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat) (copy enclosed) where Hon’bl…

Lexplosion Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7762/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. Vs. CIT [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) 10. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA 79/2016) (Delhi) 11. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL-253 – SC-IT) 12. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com409 (Delhi) [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) 13. Indu Lata Rangwalal Vs. DCIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi)/[2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/[2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi) 14. Thakorbhai Maganbhai patel Vs. ITO [2017] 78 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) /[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi). 15. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT) 16. Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[…

Sbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7791/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel and Shri Rajesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Additional CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…htly been upheld by the learned CIT(A). In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions :- 4 ITA-7791/Del/2018 (i) PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. – 2017-TIOL-253-SC- IT. (ii) PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. – [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi). (iii) Aradhna Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat). (iv) Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat). (v) Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). (vi) Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat). 5. We have carefully consid…

Shishya Edutech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7726/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. Vs. CIT [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) 10. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA 79/2016) (Delhi) 11. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL-253 – SC-IT) 12. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com409 (Delhi) [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) 13. Indu Lata Rangwalal Vs. DCIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi)/[2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/[2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi) 14. Thakorbhai Maganbhai patel Vs. ITO [2017] 78 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) /[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi). 15. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT) 16. Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…17- order dated 08.01.2018 4. Surya Jyoti Software P. Ltd.- ITA no. 2158/D/2017- Order dated 25.10.2017 5. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL- 253-SC-IT) 6. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017]392 ITR 444 (Delhi) 7. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat) 8. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017]85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) 9. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) 10. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) 11. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2018] 8…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…17- order dated 08.01.2018 4. Surya Jyoti Software P. Ltd.- ITA no. 2158/D/2017- Order dated 25.10.2017 5. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL- 253-SC-IT) 6. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017]392 ITR 444 (Delhi) 7. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat) 8. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017]85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) 9. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) 10. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) 11. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2018] 8…

M/S. Key Components (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…onducted by the A.O. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions : (i) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT. 13 ITA.No.366/Del./2016 M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd., Delhi. (ii) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Del.). (iii) Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj. ). (iv) Aaspas Multimedia Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 82 (Guj.). (v) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Indulata Rangwala 384 ITR 337. 5.1. The Ld. D.R. submitted that at the time of commencement of re-assessment proceedings, the A.O. has to see w…

Dilwara Leasing & Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee

ITA 3927/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…on which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be communicated to assessee, without mandating disclosure of any specific document. 8. PCIT, Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court [20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r20171 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) 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. 9. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT Supreme Court 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT SLP of assessee dismissed. Information regarding bogus…

Billo, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

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

ITA 3817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. Pan: Bakpb9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…gus 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. PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. T20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r2017l 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court 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 Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd.Vs PCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 2. where Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of holding the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Central Circle-23, Room No. Ltd., 359, E-2, Ara Centre, B-44, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Jangpura –B, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaace8941P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2002-03 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Central Circle-23, Room no. Ltd., 359, E-2, ARA Centre, B-44, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Jangpura –B, New Delhi Delhi PAN :AAACE8941P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR Respondent by None Date of hearing 11.09.2018 Date of pronouncement 24.10.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 06/09/2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of…

Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…the assessment. The Ld. D.R. relied upon many decisions in the list of cases filed and mainly relied upon the following decisions : (i) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 2017- TIOL-253-SC-IT. (ii) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Del.) ( HC). (iii) Indu Lata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Del.) (HC) (iv) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO (2017) 245 Taxman 333 (SC) (v) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO 79 taxman.com 409. (vi) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017-TIOL-42-SC- IT. (vii) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017 390 ITR 456 (Del.) (HC). (viii) Yogendr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT, D.R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…147 of Income Tax Act and regarding the validity of statement recorded during search & survey proceedings: • PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT) . • PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. f20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/2017/392 ITR 444 (Delhi). • Indu Lata Rangwala Vs PCIT 2017180taxmann.com102(Delhi)/r20161 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/20161 286 CTR 474 (Delhi). • Yoqendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/20141 227 Taxman 374 (SC). • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others T236 ITR 341. • ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007]161 Taxman 316 (SC)/2007] 291…

The ITO 4(4), Indore vs. Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore

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

ITA 381/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 4(4), Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore Village Birgoda, Tehsil Depalpur, बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Admpt3091K Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2018

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITO 4(4), Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore Village Birgoda, Tehsil Depalpur, बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. ADMPT3091K Revenue by Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssment u/s 147 was held to be valid despite the Assessing Officer not passing speaking order against objections filed by the assessee. 18. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO reported in 392 ITR 444, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that it is true that in the communications, the petitioner has requested for supply for documents. However, the petitioner also raised the objections to the Assessing Officer exercising the power of reassessment. In true spirit if these communications 12 were examined, th…