What is ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

How many judgments cite ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.?

1,030 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 143(1), Section 142(1), Section 68.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500)

Agya Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/292/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…ITA Nos. 290/2004, 291/2004, 292/2004 & 293/2004 Page 1 of 16 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-13 to R-16. + ITA 290/2004 + ITA 291/2004 + ITA 292/2004 + ITA 293/2004 AGYA RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI .... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh and Mr. Anup Kumar,…

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/290/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…ITA Nos. 290/2004, 291/2004, 292/2004 & 293/2004 Page 1 of 16 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-13 to R-16. + ITA 290/2004 + ITA 291/2004 + ITA 292/2004 + ITA 293/2004 AGYA RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI .... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh and Mr. Anup Kumar,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai V s. ITO (203 ITR 456) is 7 I.T.A.NO.2673/Del/2011 applicable. Ratio of Hon’ble SC in case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd is also applicable. 3. In case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. ,291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that whether material would conclusively prove escapement of in…

Regal Shoes (I) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6408/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6408/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Regal Shoes (I) Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 36, Ai Mehrab, Income Tax – 5(3), V. 3Ed Peerkhan Street, Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Nagpada, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 008. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcv9451E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist,Sr. DR

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

…llowed the purchases made by the assessee company whereas all evidences were submitted before the A.O. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rajesh Jhaveri Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007)291 ITR 500(SC). On merits, it was held by the ld. CIT(A) that Big Step International have been proved to be a hawala entry provider and the Investigation Wing of Income Tax and Sales Tax authority have informed that the assessee company is also a beneficiary of the racket of hawala. The assessee company could not provide any documentary evidence of actual d…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

…ubmitted that no assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. In fact, the returns of income were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500, the Ld. D.R. submitted that once the conditions provided under Section 148 of the Act were satisfied, the Assessing Officer has every right to reopen the assessment, therefore, the contention of the Ld. representative for the assessee that the assessment was reopened beyond four years is not correct. Even though the assessment was reopened beyon…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

…ubmitted that no assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. In fact, the returns of income were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500, the Ld. D.R. submitted that once the conditions provided under Section 148 of the Act were satisfied, the Assessing Officer has every right to reopen the assessment, therefore, the contention of the Ld. representative for the assessee that the assessment was reopened beyond four years is not correct. Even though the assessment was reopened beyon…

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

…the 10 Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. belief of escapement of income or rather it was a mere change of opinion, had no merit. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. reported at 291 ITR 500. 10. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had raised objection and letter dated 04.02.2014 disposing off its objections to the reopening was neither complete nor in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had not specified as to how the disposal of objections was illegal even otherwise the AO had recorded…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6709/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal New Delhi Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 6709/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash New Delhi Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Naresh Chandra Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20/09/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs. 63,47,405/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating The Prohibition Of Section 19(2) Of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 On The Opening Of Account By A Partner In His Own Name On Behalf Of The Firm, Which Is Further Not In Consonance With The Terms Of The Partnership Deed Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant. 3. Whether Learned Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating That The Bank Account In The Assessee’S Individual Name Was Not The Bank Account Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant, In Which The Assesse Was A Partner. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 148Section 19(2)Section 69A

…as well as challenged the additions on merit. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), upheld the re-assessment proceedings in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited, (2007) 291 ITR 500, however deleted the addition of Rs. 63,47,405/- on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and the assessee both are in appeal and cross objections respectively raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative, relying on the order of the Assessing Officer, submitted that the assessee failed to explain cash dep…

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7528/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 139(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…in the case of Prashant Joshi, reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154. In this case he pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and held that the first and foremost condition is that conditions laid down in section 147 should be fulfilled. Not only that, they have taken note of Explanation 2(b) to section 147 and held that, under the main provision of section 147 existence of the belief has to be seen which is a foundation for reopening. He also referred and relied u…

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7527/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 139(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…in the case of Prashant Joshi, reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154. In this case he pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and held that the first and foremost condition is that conditions laid down in section 147 should be fulfilled. Not only that, they have taken note of Explanation 2(b) to section 147 and held that, under the main provision of section 147 existence of the belief has to be seen which is a foundation for reopening. He also referred and relied u…

Shri Santosh Jagati, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4752/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Santosh Jagati, Vs. Ito, Anupam Hotel, Nainital, Mallital, Nainital. (Pan: Aavpj4767C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Was Not Justified In Confirming The Assessing Officers Action U/S. 148. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact That All Necessary Details Regarding Letting Out Of Property On Rent & Of The Property Sold-(Land With The Building Constructed Thereon) Were Already On Record While Processing The Return U/S. 143(1) Or Rectifying The Same U/S. 154. 2. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Misunderstood The Whole Facts & Confused Himself Between The Property Inherited From An Ancestor Before 1.04.1981 & The Property Acquired By The Appellant Himself. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…147/148) of the assessment made under sec. 143(1) was bad in law? The Hon'ble High Court after discussing several decisions including the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (supra), ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) – 291 ITR 500 (S.C), and CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) – 320 ITR 561 and CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (supra) has come to the conclusion that questions framed for consideration by the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. as set out in para No. 1 of the said judgment did not pertain to reopening of an assessment under sec. 143(1) of the Act. The cent…

M/S. Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6087/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 6087/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 M/S Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Formerly Known As M/S Narendra Ward-13(1), Cold Storage (P) Ltd., 107, New Delhi Patparganj Village, Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn8105D Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA No. 6087/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 M/s Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Formerly known as M/s Narendra Ward-13(1), Cold Storage (P) Ltd., 107, New Delhi Patparganj Village, Delhi-110091 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCN8105D Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the ord…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…f India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) 21 Jayant Manilal Gandhy CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rom the end of assessment year. No assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not an assessment order as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) . Income of the assessee has escaped assessment as per Explanation 2, clause ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 20 (c) (ii) of section 147 of the Act , as by showing rental income as business income, the income of the assessee company was made the subject of excessive relief under the Act . The A.O. has recorded the reasons and the same were provid…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rom the end of assessment year. No assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not an assessment order as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) . Income of the assessee has escaped assessment as per Explanation 2, clause ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 20 (c) (ii) of section 147 of the Act , as by showing rental income as business income, the income of the assessee company was made the subject of excessive relief under the Act . The A.O. has recorded the reasons and the same were provid…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rom the end of assessment year. No assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not an assessment order as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) . Income of the assessee has escaped assessment as per Explanation 2, clause ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 20 (c) (ii) of section 147 of the Act , as by showing rental income as business income, the income of the assessee company was made the subject of excessive relief under the Act . The A.O. has recorded the reasons and the same were provid…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rom the end of assessment year. No assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not an assessment order as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) . Income of the assessee has escaped assessment as per Explanation 2, clause ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 20 (c) (ii) of section 147 of the Act , as by showing rental income as business income, the income of the assessee company was made the subject of excessive relief under the Act . The A.O. has recorded the reasons and the same were provid…

Mrs. Sharon Nayak, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1594/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 161Section 17(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(i)Section 56(2)(vi)

…ng of return, when there is no issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, could be deemed as an assessment, we are unable to accept. This argument is contrary to the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [291 ITR 500]. It was held by their Lordships that processing of return u/s.143(1) of the Act, was only clerical or ministerial act, and could not be considered as making of an assessment. 15. A reading of the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Indramma (supra), relied on by the assessee, clearly show that their Lordships has u…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…matter. This judicial pronouncement squarely defends the case of the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble Court duly considered the following decision a. Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) b. CIT vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe (P) Ltd. (1991) 97 CTR (Kar) 117 (1992) 194 ITR 159 (Kar) c. CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802…

ITO 25(2)3, Mumbai vs. Siddhivinayak Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed accordingly

ITA 1887/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1887/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 25(2)(3) M/S. Siddhivinayak बनाम/ C-11, R.No.105, Construction Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Sukarwadi, M.G.Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Borivali(E), Bandra(East), Mumbai - 400066 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfs5318J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the escapement of income therefore in the said circumstances the reopening u/s. 147 of the Act does not seems justifiable. Reliance placed upon the 20 taxman.com 784 (Guj.) Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT and ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) and Teleco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 4163/Mum/2005. No doubt in view of the said circumstances the learned CIT(A) has passed the order 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 in question judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. 3. In result the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismis…

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

What is ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Agya Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

Regal Shoes (I) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, New Delhi

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

Shri Santosh Jagati, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

M/S. Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

Mrs. Sharon Nayak, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

ITO 25(2)3, Mumbai vs. Siddhivinayak Construction, Mumbai