How many judgments cite Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT (390 ITR 456), spanning 2018 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 131(1), Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 147.

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT

390 ITR 456High Court2017#7899 most cited

What is Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reopening of assessment is valid when based on tangible material, such as information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) or evidence of accommodation entries, especially where the assessee fails to provide satisfactory details regarding share applicants with meagre income investing large sums.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT · reopening of assessment · tangible material · Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) · accommodation entry · share application money · escapement of income · section 147 · section 148 · borrowed satisfaction

Sections most often in play

Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151

Issues it is cited on

live link borrowed satisfaction entry operator change of opinion share application money tangible material escapement of income reason to believe reopening of assessment accommodation entry reassessment proceedings incriminating material

Judgments citing Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…, wherein the reopening was initiated on the basis of information received by AO from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry taken from entry providers. In the cases, Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT 390 ITR 456 and PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. 392 UR 444, Hon'ble Court has opined that the information received from Directorate constitutes the tangible material and reopening of assessment on the basis of such tangible material is valid. This is supported by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also in the case Pushpak Bullion P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 394 ITR 6…

ITO Ward - 10(4), New Delhi vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5143/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcs7132B

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAHCS7132B Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 26.03.2019 of CIT(A)-08, New Delhi (hereinafter ref…

United Fabricators & Technical Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2193/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 2193/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 United Fabricators & Technical Vs Acit, Services Pvt. Ltd., B-15, Suvidha Circle-27(1), Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu8110F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.03.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 40A

…on'ble Court in other case Contel Medicare Systems P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 649, wherein the reopening was initiated on the basis of information received by AO from, the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), in the cases, Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT 390 ITR 456 and PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. 392 ITR 444, Hon'ble Court has opined that the information received from Directorate constitutes the tangible material and reopening of assessment on the basis of such tangible material is valid. 4.1 The facts in the case of appellant are similar to aforesaid cases. Here also, information was receiv…

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.900 & 901/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Satvijay Investment & Consultancy Vs. ITO, Services P. Ltd., Ward-22(4), 4697/3, 2nd Floor, Ansari Road, New Delhi. Daryaganj, New Delhi. PAN: AABCS3357G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amol Sinha & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the ass…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R

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

…was held that reopening of assessment is justified, when the bank statements as well as the ITR form disclosing returns, raises more questions than satisfying the queries already raised. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee- company furnished only cheque numbers, but failed to provide bank details of share applicants and it was found that share applicants had meagre income while investing huge sum of Rs. 8 crores, reopening notice was justified 13. Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…Rangwalav. DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi), Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO [2017] 245 Taxman (SC), Thakor bhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC- IT), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi), Yogendrakumar Gupta [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and other (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1997] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC…

D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High 3 I.T.A. No. 181/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. Court in the case of Aravali Infrapower Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) and submitted that under same circumstances the Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the re-opening of assessment and vehemently contended that there was application of mind by the AO to the information received and that under law a reasonable belief is sufficient and that the escapement of the income need not be proved with evidence at the ti…

Sunil Kanayalal Gambani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1179/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…201 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 333 (SC), Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi), Yogendrakumar Gupta 6 Sunil Kanayalal v. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC), ACIT v.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Senorita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5388/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

…was held that reopening of assessment is justified, when the bank statements as well as the ITR form disclosing returns, raises more questions than satisfying the queries already raised. Aravalilnfrapower Ltd. Vs DCIT T20171 77 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee- company furnished only cheque numbers, but failed to provide bank details of share applicants and it was found that share applicants had meager income while investing huge sum of Rs. 8 crores, reopening notice was justified.” “Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ajalakshmi Vs. ITO (2018-TIOL-2324-HC-MUM- IT) 19. Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwala Trust Vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-341-HC-MUM-IT) 20. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT) 21. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) 22. Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/ [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 23. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 34] 24. R.K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 25. CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 26. ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock B…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Billo, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. Pan: Bakpb9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as held that reopening of assessment is justified, when the bank statements as well as the ITR form disclosing returns, raises more questions than satisfying the queries already raised. Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee-company furnished only cheque numbers, but failed to provide bank details of share applicants and it was found that share applicants had meagre income while investing huge sum of Rs. 8 crores, re-opening notice was justified 13. Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[…

Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…2016) 384 ITR 337 (Del.) (HC) (iv) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO (2017) 245 Taxman 333 (SC) (v) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO 79 taxman.com 409. (vi) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017-TIOL-42-SC- IT. (vii) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017 390 ITR 456 (Del.) (HC). (viii) Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO (2014) 227 Taxman 374 (SC). (ix) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., vs. ITO & Others 236 ITR 34 (SC) 6 ITA.No.2749/Del./2018 Shri Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is well settled law that validity of initiation of re-asses…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…when the bank statements as well as the ITR form disclosing returns, raises more questions than satisfying the queries already raised. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aravali Infrapower Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 390 ITR 456, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee company furnished only cheque numbers, but failed to provide bank details of 13 share applicant and it was found that share applicants had meager income while investing huge sum of Rs.8 crores, reopening notice was justified. 21. Referring to the decisi…