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.

Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2044/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Anil Singhal C/O. Dinesh Vs. Ito, Mohan, Advocate, 2- Anand Ward-1(1) Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Muzaffarnagar Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan-Bksps7631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2017 Order Per B.P. Jain, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eleven Grounds Of Appeal & First Four Grounds Being Legal Which Have Been Pressed By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- That The Notice Issued U/S 148 & Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 1) 144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances, No Satisfaction Is Recorded By 2) The Assessing Officer As Required U/S 147/148 Of The Act Prior Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. That, No Satisfaction Has Been Recorded By The Assessing Officer After 3) 2

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…e Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 5 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order 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 t…

Smt. Taruna Verma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishismt Taruna Verma, Vs. Ito, A-340, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Ward-19(3), Pan:Akfpv1950P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ing. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of principle Commissioner of income tax versus G & G Pharma Ltd 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that:- 10. In Asst. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC), the Supreme Court in a short order held as under : "Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Depart ment sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer, the opinion of the District Valuation Officer per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA/703/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

…he Appellant/Assessee relied on the decisions in CIT v. Dharamveer Sardana (decision dated 4th May, ITA 703/2017 Page 4 of 5 2012 in ITA No.266/2012); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del); Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v.…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA - 703 / 2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

…anning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:53 ITA 703/2017 Page 4 of 5 2012 in ITA No.266/2012); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del); Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v.…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…." The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order 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 t…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gupta Dyefab P.Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4198/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147sSection 148Section 68

…tion wing which has been relied on by the department for re-opening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act was not a fresh or valid material which can lead to reopening of an assessment and the judgment in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co - 328 ITR 515 (SC); and Mahashay Chunnilal v. DCIT 362 ITR 314 (Dgjjc^ip favour of the appellant. Therefore in view of the above said I hold that reopening of assessment u/s 147 is not valid and this re-assessment order is quashed. The appeal is allowed.” 5. On perusal of the record and all arguments of ld. counsel for the assessee Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Advoc…

I.T.O. Ward -2(2), Nagpur vs. Smt. Samyukta Ashwin Sabnani Nee Samyukta Shivjit Morya, Nagpur

In the result this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 38/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri Nrendra KaneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Loya

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 55A

…1 ITA No. 38/Nag/2016. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 38/Nag/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09. The Income-tax Officer, Smt. Samukta Ashwin Sabnani nee Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Vs. Samykta Shivjeet Moray, Nagpur. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri Nrendra Kane. Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Loya. Date of Hearing : 22-11-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 9th Jan., 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals) and pertain…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…437 (SC) " Bhageria Finance and Investment Ltd. Vs DCIT 43 CCH 40 (Del.) " Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " G & G Pharma India Ltd. Vs ITO 43 CCH 18 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC) 12. On merits the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was not denied by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had furnished all the requisite details regarding the identity and the transaction. The amount in question was received through banking channels, the details of which were made available to the AO. The addition ha…

M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 86/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr6935N Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.11.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 86/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/s Kanha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Ward-5(1), Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR6935N Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in thi…

Rajasthan Club, New Delhi vs. ADIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2649/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Vs. Adit(E), Inv. Circle-Ii, New Rajasthan Club, Dp-22, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaatr6043G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & P.K. Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/03/2010 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2002-03 Raising Following Grounds: “ 1. The Appellant, Rajasthan Club Is Engaged In Charitable Activity During The Financial Year 2001-02. The Appellant Is A Regular Income Tax Assessee & Assessed To Income Tax For The Last Several Years. All Income, Assets & Investments Are Disclosed To Income Tax Department In Regular Income Tax Returns. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Incorrect & Unjustified In Making A Reference Of The Property In This Case To The Valuation Officer Without Any Reason Basis & Evidence.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) cannot be said to be full value consideration received or accrued to the assessee; (iv) that the DVO’s Report, whether interim or final, cannot be made basis to enhance the full value consideration, placing reliance on 328 ITR 515 (Supreme Court) in the case of ACIT versus Dhariya construction company, 316 ITR 46(Del) in the case of CIT versus Shakuntala Devi and other decisions; (v) that no final report of DVO was submitted by the Assessing Officer in spite of the direction of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in remand proceedings under section 250(4) of t…

Sri. Narayanarao M. More, Bidar vs. ITO, Bidar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 959/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Balachandran & P. Dinesh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jha, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…he ground of cost of construction/valuation of residential house, the reopening is bad in the eye of law as settled by the Hori'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Sargarn Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and (2) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) and therefore the consequent assessment order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Without prejudice, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated t h a t the reopening of assessment was made on a mere change of opinion more so on the allegations of investment made by the Appellant and that there was no material whatsoever with the assess…

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2526/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

…" The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: 7 ITA-1243 & 2526/D/2014 "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…

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1243/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…nsel such reports are mere estimates and the additions are not sustainable in the search assessment. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhariya Construction Co, 328 ITR 515 which is relevant for the proposition that “having examined the records, we find in that case Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. The opinion given by the District Valuation Officer is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961”.…

Shree Shyam Khatu Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4810/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

….” The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order 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 information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind to…

A.C.I.T Cir - 1, Asansol vs. M/S Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2513/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri T. K. Neogi, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, CA

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.2513/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Burnpur Cement Ltd. Circl1-1, Asansol (PAN:AACCA1999B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 13.05.2016 Date of pronouncement: 18.05.2016 For the Appellant: Shri T. K. Neogi, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, CA ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A), Asansol vide Appeal No. 213/CIT(A)/Asl/cir-1/Asl/12-13 dated 02.09.2013. Ass…

Mount View Club & Resorts P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

ITA 1358/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69B

…2A is invalid and therefore the reopening based on the said valuation officer's report is also void ab-initio and the said proposition is supported by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. [328 ITR 515) wherein it was held that "the Opinion of the D.V.O. per se is not an information for the purpose of the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the Apex Court by the said decision has confirmed the view taken by:- (1) The Calcutta High 'Court in Hotel Regal International and Anr. Vs. Income Tax Offi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 115/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2003-04 Acit, Vs. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., Circle-12(1), B-20/1, Wazirpur International New Delhi. Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcg1201H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 22:04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Raising The Issue As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.40,02,780 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Sec. 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credits.

For Appellant: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

Shraddha Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 3280/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Gargita No. 3280/Del. 2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Tulsiyan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270Section 68

….” The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order 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 t…