Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 271AAA, Section 133A.

Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

Q: How many judgments cite Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat?

103 judgments on BharatTax cite Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (5 SCC 302), spanning 2011 to 2026.

5 SCC 302Supreme Court of India1995#1060 most cited

What is Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat authority for?

A statutory authority vested with discretion must exercise that power independently, based on its own judgment, and not under the dictation or instructions of a higher authority. Exercising discretion under superior direction constitutes a failure to exercise it at all.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja · 5 SCC 302 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 151 · reason to believe · borrowed satisfaction · dictated satisfaction · independent exercise of discretion · failure to exercise discretion · reopening of assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 271AAA Section 133A Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 116 first proviso to section 147 beyond four years borrowed satisfaction escapement of income reopening of assessment section 151 section 133a reason to believe undisclosed income notice under section 148

Judgments citing Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in 346 ITR 343 ( Bom) , 345 ITR 223 ( del ) and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :- ― 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in ‘Administrative Law‘, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading ‘SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION‘ and sub- heading "Power in the wrong hands" as below:- "Closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arran…

Smt. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 154Section 271Section 271A

…courts in 346 ITR 343 ( Bom) , 345 ITR 223 ( del ) and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Smt. Tripat Kaur Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 14 New Delhi Page 41 of 44 Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :- ― 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in ‘Administrative Law‘, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading ‘SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION‘ and sub- heading "Power in the wrong hands" as below:- "Closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distingushable from it in some cases, is any arrange…

Mohan Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2018/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Sh. N.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 116Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…r mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be “independent” and not “borrowed” or “dictated” satisfaction. Law in this regard is now well settled. The Apex Court in the case of AnirudhSinhji KaranSinhji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deci…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M & Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…and circumstances discussed above, we note that only based on the “Approval” of the ADIT (Inv.) dated 24.03.2015, the AO has issued notice. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat – (1995) 5 SCC 302, that “if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority’s instructions, then it will 12 I.TA No. 2288/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. be a case of fa…

M/S. Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

…ry condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be "independent" and not "borrowed" or "dictated" satisfaction. Law in this regard is now well- settled. [Para 8] The Apex Court in the case of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. [Para 9] Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly d…

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

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

ITA 1329/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…l be done in that manner alone and reliance in ITA Nos.1229, 1329, 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 Page 43 support of this proposition can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302, wherein it was held that if statutory authority has been vested with a jurisdiction, he alone has to exercise it and assumption of jurisdiction by any other authority is not sustainable under law. Furthermore, the provisions of SEZ Act shall over-ride the provisions of Income-tax Act. Even if there is anything in the Income- tax Act which is incon…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1251/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

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

ITA 1229/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA is allowed

ITA 2212/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2002-03 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon. Hari Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaefs 7721G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 11.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eight Grounds Of Appeal, I.E., The Legal Grounds As Well As Grounds On Merit. “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Serving The Mandatory Notices Under Sections 142(1), 148 & 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Complying The Mandatory Conditions Of Section 147 To 153 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Reopening Of The Case Is Bad In Law & Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing The Impugned Assessment Being Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Void Ab Initio.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non satisfaction of the condition precedent.” 5. The Apex Court in the case of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. 6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the…

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

…DHC). 38. State of Bihar Vs. JA.C Saldanna & Ors. AIR (1980) SC 326. 39. State ofGujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR (1969) SCN 634. 40. Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Ors. Vs.ITO, 176ITR 35 (Pat.) 41. Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State ofGujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 42. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. ITO Reported as ITA 375/Del/2011 43. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta & Anr., (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) 44. CIT v. Shri Ttrath Ram Ahuja (HUF), (2008) 306ITR 173 (DEL) 45. In P. C Gulati, Voluntary Liquidator, Panipat Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi, (1972) 86ITR…

M/S. Krish Fragrance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5783/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 M/S Krish Fragrance (P) Ltd., Income Tax Officer, A-703, Happy Home Vs. Ward 5(3), Delhi Apartments, (Now Ward 14(4), Delhi Sector-7, Udaipur, Dwarka, New Delhi (Pan:Aacck4867E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Sumit LalFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S KRISH FRAGRANCE (P) LTD., INCOME TAX OFFICER, A-703, HAPPY HOME VS. WARD 5(3), DELHI APARTMENTS, (NOW WARD 14(4), DELHI SECTOR-7, UDAIPUR, DWARKA, NEW DELHI (PAN:AACCK4867E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advs. Department by : Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 5/9/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Delhi on the following grounds…

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

…of suspicion only. So existing of alleged report & statement is seriously doubted and disputed. Present reopening is not only on ground of change of opinion but also hit by proviso to section 147. In the case of Anirudhsinhii Jadega v. State of Guiarat (1995) 5 SCC 302, "the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a discretion is vested with a certain authority, he alone should exercise that discretion vested under the statute and if he acts in accordance with "the direction or any compliance with some higher authorities instruction" it would be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. This ground is cov…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mirabelle International, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2213/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2001-02 Acit, Circle-31(1), M/S Mirabelle International New Delhi Vs. 13/14, Windsor Mansion, Room No. 1405, 15Th Floor, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001 Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, (Pan: Aabfm1743P) Civic Centre, New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2Section 2(16)Section 292BSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2001-02 ACIT, CIRCLE-31(1), M/S MIRABELLE INTERNATIONAL NEW DELHI VS. 13/14, WINDSOR MANSION, ROOM NO. 1405, 15TH FLOOR, JANPATH, NEW DELHI – 110 001 DR. SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE, (PAN: AABFM1743P) CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. Surender Pal. Sr. DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 20-07-2016 Date of Order : 08-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.” The Apex Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory 12 authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. We are, therefore, of the opinion that th…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…record, had chosen not to make any enquiry into this aspect of claim. This can be, at the most, an erroneous order which cannot confer jurisdiction of re- assessment on the AO. Page 36 of 37 (xi) In the case of Anirudhsinhji Jadega v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a discretion is vested with a certain authority, he alone should exercise that discretion vested under the statute and if he acts in accordance with “the direction or any compliance with some higher authorities instruction” it would be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. (xii) Therefore, th…

ITO WD 4(4), Thane vs. Vidyavardhini Trust, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3840/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ignated to record his satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his independent mind to record his satisfaction. 3.11. The Apex Court in the case of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. 3.12. We have analysed the correct position o…

ITO WD 4(4), Thane vs. Vidyavardhini Trust, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3839/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…ADIT (Inv.) dated 24.03.2011, the AO has initiated report for sanction u/s 151 and issued notice, which is nothing but “borrowed belief”. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat – (1995) 5 SCC 302, that “if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority’s instructions, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion all together.” It has to be kept in mind that satisfaction reco…