Arjun Singh v. ADIT

246 ITR 363High Court2000#1066 most cited

What is Arjun Singh v. ADIT authority for?

For a valid reassessment, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. A mechanical endorsement like 'I am satisfied' without considering the material amounts to non-application of mind and invalidates the sanction under Section 151.

102

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Arjun Singh v ADIT · 246 ITR 363 · Section 147 · Section 151 · reassessment sanction · approval for reassessment · non-application of mind · mechanical satisfaction · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · sanctioning authority

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 144Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

principal chief commissioner of income-taxsection 147(b)section 147(a)sanctioning authorityapproval under section 151sanction under section 151section 151(2)section 151(1)non application of mindmaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147kelvinator

Judgments citing Arjun Singh v. ADIT

Som Raj, Pathankot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pathankot

ITA 628/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:— The…

Bansal Rice Traders, Sangrur vs. ITO-Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles arc laid down:— The C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…He specifically referred to para Nos. 20 to 23 of the said decision. He further relied on following judicial precedents:- i. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); ii. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); iii. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). iv. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) v. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); vi. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CI…

Exult It Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Willis India Brokers Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7276/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 7276/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Exult It Services Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer (Formerly Known As Willis Ward 14(3)(4) Ab 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.) Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor Commercial Union Vs. House, 9, Wallace Street, Fort: 400 001 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacw3235A अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यऺ के द्वारा / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…r this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxman.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh) and Arjun Singh Vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP) 6. On the other hand, learned Sr. Departmental Representative, Shri Sumit Kumar supported the order of CIT(A). Exuit IT Services P. Ltd; 09-10 7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we noted from the perusal for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act mooted by the Assessing Off…

Jap Infracon Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8038/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8038/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(1) B-102, Twinkle Apt, New Link Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacp3809P अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay Daga प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-21, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/It-873/Ito-12(3)(1)/2017-18 Vide Dated 24.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter „The Act‟). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Upholding The Validity Of Assessment Of 2 Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 10-11 Jurisdiction Under Section 147 Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Following Two Grounds:-

For Appellant: S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…r this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxman.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh) and Arjun Singh Vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP) 6. On the other hand, learned Sr. Departmental Representative Smt. Smita Verma supported the order of the CIT(A) and also relied on the case laws of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta) and CIT vs. Uttam Chand Nahar [2007] 295ITR403 (Rajasthan). 5 Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; AY 10-11 7. After considering the…

Shri Madal Lal, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 112/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153B(1)Section 153D

…of mind. (emphasis supplied) We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the ITA Nos. 112 to 118/Asr/2018 24 case of Arjun Singh [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:— 'The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format "Yes, I am satisfied" which indicates as if he wa…

Shri Narotam Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 307/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) • Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) 10. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the A.O. as well as the approving authority recorded their satisfaction before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act and that the JCIT being competent authority gave the approval after applying his mind,…

Shri Tarlochan Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) • Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) 10. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the A.O. as well as the approving authority recorded their satisfaction before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act and that the JCIT being competent authority gave the approval after applying his mind,…

Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (4), Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.S. Bali, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles arc laid down:— The Co…

Smt. Moumita Saha, Agartala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/GTY/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 153BSection 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 153DSection 69

…5) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:- "We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am Satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh vs. Asstt. DIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- "The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format "Yes, I am satisfied" which indicates as if he was to…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…6 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:- “7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so “Yes, I am Satisfied”. In the case of Arjun Singh vs. Asstt. DIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates as if he wa…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 309/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…6 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:- “7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so “Yes, I am Satisfied”. In the case of Arjun Singh vs. Asstt. DIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates as if he wa…

Shri Tek Chand, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-2, Kaithal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: 02-04-2020. That The Appellant Prepared Appeal & Deposited Appeal Fee On 18-03-2020 As Per Challan Of Appeal Fee Attached With Appeal Form.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7.We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles arc laid down:— The Co…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

…the same reason because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs., ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) in which also similarly worded sanction under section 148 was not found valid. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., N.C. Cables Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649 42 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. (Del.) in which also…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

…the same reason because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs., ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) in which also similarly worded sanction under section 148 was not found valid. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., N.C. Cables Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649 42 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. (Del.) in which also…

Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…the same reason because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs., ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) in which also similarly worded sanction under section 148 was not found valid. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., N.C. Cables Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649 62 ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. (Del.) in which also…

Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…the same reason because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs., ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) in which also similarly worded sanction under section 148 was not found valid. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., N.C. Cables Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649 44 ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC Township P. Ltd., Delhi. (Del.) in which also on similarly worded sanc…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…ings so undertaken with the sole object of making open ended enquiries is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the following decisions – a. Arjun Singh [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP) b. Lokendra Singh Rathore [1985] 155 ITR 629 (MP) c. Bombay Pharma Products [1999] 237 ITR 614 (MP) 10. Without prejudice, the instant proceedings carried out without making available copies of documents, returns and computation of income for verifying the treatment of alleged cash of Rs. 16,00,000 and resulting assessment orders of M/s. Bh…

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

…gamal Rajpal reported in [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh). iii. Arjun Singh vs. Asstt. Director of Income-tax [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP). iv. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. N.C.Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Hon’ble Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vinod Commodities vs. ACIT. 17. Even otherwise we find that the AO has not applied his mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. He re-opened based on borrowed satisfaction. The asse…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…R 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC Ltd, 45 Taxman.com 443(Guj) 54. Lakhmani Mewal Das. 103 ITR 437.448(SC) 55. Arjun Singh, 246 ITR 363, 405(MP) 56. Seth Brothers. 251 ITR 270 (Guj) 57. Bombay Pharma Products, 237 ITR 614 (MP) 58. Lokendra Singh Rathore, 155 ITR 629 (MP) 59. United Electrical Co. (P) Limited, 258 ITR 317 (Del) 60. Foramer France 364 ITR 566 (SC) 61. Purolator India Ltd. 343 ITR 155 (Del) 62. Motor & General Fiance, 184 Taxman 465 (Del) 63. Titanor Components Ltd.…