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

Shri Raj Kumar Goel, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1028/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Goel -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Advpg 0006 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] I.T.A No. 1028/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Goel -vs- I.T.O., Ward-36(1), Kolkata [PAN: ADVPG 0006 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 16.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2018 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] dated 20.03.2017 against the order passed by…

Gagandeep Maan, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 148

…rginal payment of commission. The ld. DR prayed for addition of entire amount as bogus purchases. To support her submissions the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 392 ITR 444 (Delhi); A.Y. 2009-10 ii. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, 393 ITR 612 (Gujarat); iii. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat); iv. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236 ITR 34 (SC). 6.1 The ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed th…

Income-Tax Officer, Pune vs. Shri Gagandeep Amarpal Maan, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1078/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 148

…rginal payment of commission. The ld. DR prayed for addition of entire amount as bogus purchases. To support her submissions the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 392 ITR 444 (Delhi); A.Y. 2009-10 ii. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, 393 ITR 612 (Gujarat); iii. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat); iv. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236 ITR 34 (SC). 6.1 The ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed th…

Vilayati Ram Mittal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 26(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4442/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishivilayati Ram Mittal Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, F-345, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi Ward-26(3), Pan:Aabcv4002F New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Padma Priya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subash Verma, Sr. DR
Section 69C

…ntered into accommodation entries transaction and the purchases are bogus. The issue of reopening is fully covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Paramount Communications Pvt Ltd 392 ITR 444 (Delhi). In view of this the arguments of the Ld. authorized representative on the issue of reopening vide ground no A & B are dismissed. 7. Coming on the issue of the merit vide ground no c to K , the Ld. authorized representative argued that assessee has made payment to the parties by banking channel and she submitted the copy of the bank certi…

M/S Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2424/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Rishipal Investments & Finance (P) Ito, Ward- 21(3), Ltd., New Delhi. 25/31, Ambros House, Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) ITO, Ward- 21(3), Ltd., New Delhi. 25/31, Ambros House, Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. PAN : AABCR5971K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V. K. Tulsiyan, CA Department by : Ms. Yamini, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01-12-2017 Date of pronouncement : 22-12-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.02.2017 of CIT(A)-36, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08. 2…

Virendra Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 to 7 are partly allowed

ITA 2721/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishivirendra Kumar Gupta, Acit, Vs. Prop Sanjay Metal Udyog, Circle-39(1), 3858, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapg4216E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 148

…Ambuja Export Ltd Vs. DCIT in SCA No. 10745/ 2016 dated 11.09.2017. He further stated that issue is also squarely covered in favour of the revenue on reopening by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Paramount Communication Ltd Vs. Pr. CIT 392 ITR 444 against which special Leave petition filed by the assessee is also dismissed, wherein, Hon'ble High Court held that information regarding bogus purchases by assessee received by DRI from Central Excise Commissioner which was passed on to the Revenue authorities was tangible material to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. He further relied up…

Sandeep Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.P. Jain[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. The Income-Tax Officer S/O Late Yogendar Singh Ward – 1(3) L/H Late Smt. Javitri Devi Ghaziabad R/O Village Noor Nagar Ghaziabad, U.P. Pan : Cfipd 6068 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2017 Assessee By : Shri Hiren Mehta, Ca Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, Ca Shri M.K. Madan, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit - Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT - DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50C

…r contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and further relied upon the following decisions: 1. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication [P] ltd [2017]- TIOL-253-SC-IT] PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication [P] ltd [2017] 79 Taxmann.com 409 [DEL] 392 ITR 444 [DEL] 2. Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT [2017 80 Taxmann.com 102 [DEL] [2016] 384 ITR 337 [DEL] [2016] 286 CTR 474 [DEL] 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material on record. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by both the sides. From a reading of the reasons recorded by the AO at page 7…

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2158/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

…Vs 1TO [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 2. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017]78 taxmann.com 58 (Guiarat) 3. PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017- TIOL-253-SC-IT] 16 I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017 4. PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) Thus, he strongly relied upon the order of the Pr. CIT. 17. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding and observations appearing in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. Here in this case, the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 30/11/2011, wherein a…

Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1720/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 146Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tion and without quantifying the amount formed the belief, is not correct and we reject the said contention. We may also like to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Delhin High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Paramount Communications P. Ltd., reported in[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Del) where it is held as under: “Having regard to the contents of the notice for the assessment year 2003-04, the court is unable to agree with the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It constitutes reference to tangible material "outside" the record, i.e., information based upon the investigation of the Commissioner of Central Excis…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -12(2), M/s. Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., G-5, IInd Floor, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACG0268R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Bhalla, AR Respondent by Sh. Amril Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.04.2017 Date of pronouncement 09.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 11/02/2013 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi…

Ratnagiri Stainless P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4463/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. v. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AADCR2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N.M. Porwal Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 02-03-2017…