How many judgments cite ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.?

116 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (328 ITR 515), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 142(1), Section 132.

ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

328 ITR 515Supreme Court of India2010#916 most cited

What is ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. authority for?

Reassessment under Section 147 requires the Assessing Officer to apply an independent mind to the information; a vague report or a District Valuation Officer's opinion alone is not sufficient information to form the belief that income has escaped assessment.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. · Dhariya Construction · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · independent application of mind · vague report · DVO opinion · information for reassessment · formation of belief · escaped income · sanction under section 151

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 202

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 132 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

amp expenditure true and full disclosure section 92ba sanction under section 151 fresh tangible material material facts necessary for assessment transfer pricing order first proviso to section 147 section 148(2)sanctioning authority kelvinator section 151(1)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…basis of vague report of the investigation wing/appraisal report, without any independent application of of mind, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio, as has been held in the following legal decisions:  ACTT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC)  Pr. CIT. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del)  Well Trans Logistics India (P.) Lad. vs. ACTT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 72 (Def)  CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del))  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) L…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak vs. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7482/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Ito, Ward 4, Vs. M/S. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. H.No.122/8, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak (Haryana). (Pan: Aakcs2610R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Order : 18.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 18.08.2009 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,17,770/-. The Return Was Processed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…assessee to certain entities without applying his own mind was not justified. (A.Y. 2004-05, 2006-07) CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2015) 128 DTR 217 / 63 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi)(HC) and in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) it was held that the opinion of DVO per se is not an information for the purpose of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 130 DTR 78/ 283 CTR 92 (Delhi)(HC) it was held that mere information that huge cash deposits were made in the bank accounts could not give the AO…

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…link with the formation of the belief. iii)Pr. CIT vs. G. Pharma (I) Ltd (2017) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iv)CIT vs. Insecticides (I) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.) v)Durga Prasad Goyal Vs. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr)(SB), vi) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) vii) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources (2017) 397 ITR 106 (Del) HELD “Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for him to have simply concluded that it was evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries. The basic j…

Seema Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2777/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Seema Singh, Vs Ito, E-65, Chatterpur Extension, Near Ward-32(3), Suman Chowk, New Delhi-110074. New Delhi. Pan-Cazps4606K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 29.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…t that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment is missing in the present case." Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs Dhariya Construction reported in 328 ITR 515(SC) held as under: "Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. Opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind to the information, if any, coll…

Jayanta Kumar Sardar, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.

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

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…ther, the opinion of the DVO, perse, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence (See K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468 of 2003 (Asst. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC)) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 287 ITR 285 (Delhi)." In the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515, (SC) held as under: "Having examined the record, we find that in this…

Sruthi Riedl, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

ITA 126/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)

…ent enquiry was caused by the A.O before reopening the assessment. Mere 'Information' without independent verification of facts does not constitute 'Reason to believe' U/s 147. The appellant relies on the following decisions : i. ACIT vs Dhariya constructions 328 ITR 515 (SC). ii. Sesasterlite Ltd —417 ITR 334 (Born). iii. Kamadhenu steel & Alloys Ltd - 248 CTR 33(Del). iv. RMG polymers - 396 ITR 5 (Del) V. R.K Machine Tools Ltd - 100 ITR (Trib) 73, [ITAT, Delhi] 9.2. Ld A.O acted on the borrowed satisfaction and not supplied the underlying material on which he relied up on. The appellant relies on: Charu Chains…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…v. Smt. Attri Devi [2005] 276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for whic…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

Shri Anilbhai Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1-2. No.1329 & 2008-09 Shri Anilbhai Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 2328/Ahd/2018 8, Amrashirish Bunglows, Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahaladnagar Ahmedabad. Garden, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: ALHPS1805K 3. No.1453/Ahd/2018 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Shri Anilbhai Hiralal Central Circle-1(2), Shah, Ahmedabad. 8, Amrashirish Bunglows, Near Prahaladnagar Gar…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ssment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and the consequential assessment was to be annulled. k. Reliance is also placed on the parity of reasoning laid down in the following decisions – (a) ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. 328 ITR 515 (SC) (b) CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex 313 ITR 231 (Raj) [SLP dismissed] (c) ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., v. ACIT 2012-TIOL- 590-HC-MUM-IT (d) Mrs.Vinita Jain v. ITO 158 Taxman Magazine 167 (Del) Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 25 of 58 (e) CIT v. Shardaben K Modi reported in [2013] 35 taxmann.com 264 (Gujarat) (f) Shree Chalthan Vibha…

Aloke Ray, Kolkata vs. ACIT(Intt.Taxation), Cir.-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Kalyansundaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukunga Sema, ACIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 55A

…epted by the Ld. AO under the discretionary powers available with him cannot be treated as erroneous calling for interference u/s 263. 5. The assessee relies on the following judicial precedents in support of its submissions: a. ACIT v Dhanya Construction Co. 328 ITR 515 (SC) in which it was held that the DVO report is merely an opinion and cannot lead to reopening of assessment. b. Jitendar Singh Chaddha v Pr. CIT-18 ITA 2732/Del/2018 (1TAT) in which on almost identical facts, it was held when AO has concluded assessment based on Valuation Report of Government Registered Valuer, he has taken a possible view and…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…notice under s. 148 can be issued simply on the basis of audit report and the CIT's approval of the action under s. 147 without there being satisfaction and application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. (iv) ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010) 328 ITR 515 (Annexure 13)the Supreme Court in a short order held that AO has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon.(para 10) (v) BIR ARINA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO (1993) 204 ITR 0258 JKHC (Annexure 14), it has been held that the notices issued under sec. 148 do not disclose any basis for the belief of t…

M/S. Shree Gurjari Industries Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Surat

In the result, ground No. 1of the appeal is allowed

ITA 980/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Shree Gurjari Industries The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Am-4, Prsident Plaza, Nr. Income Tax,Circle-2(1)(2), Vs Rto, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Room No. 323, Pan : Abjfs2664J Aaykarbhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Appellant /Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s Shree Gurjari Industries The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., AM-4, Prsident Plaza, Nr. Income Tax,Circle-2(1)(2), Vs RTO, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Room No. 323, PAN : ABJFS2664J AaykarBhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Appellant /assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri P.M.Jagasheth, C.A Revenue by Shri Deependra Kumar – Sr-DR Date of hearing 28.10.2021 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PERPAWAN SINGH,…

ACIT 23(3), Mumbai vs. M/S the Salsette Catholic Co-Op. Housing Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3869/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT 23(3), M/s. The Salsette Room No.104, Catholic Co-op. Housing 1st Floor, Ltd., Matru Mandir, Vs. The Bandra Gymkhana, J.D. Road, 42 St. Andrew’s Road, Tardeo, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 050 PAN: AAAT0195N (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.67/M/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.3869/M/2019) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Salsette ACIT 23(3), Catholic Co-op. Housing Room No.104, Ltd., 1st Floor, The Bandra Gymkhana, Vs. Matru Ma…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

…f belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled. 72. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC) held that the opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held that the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 148

…f belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC) held that the opinion of the DVO per se is not an & CO No.51/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 38 information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held that the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the De…

Pv Corporate Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8027/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Pv Corporate Advisory Services Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/O Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, Chi Iv, Noida. Pan: Aadcp7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 PV Corporate Advisory Services Vs. ITO, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/o Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, ATS Greens Paradiso, CHI IV, Noida. PAN: AADCP7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th May, 2019 of the CIT(A)-7, New Delhi relating to assessme…