Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT

343 ITR 141High Court2012#1380 most cited

What is Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT authority for?

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147 after four years if the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, even if a claim made was later found incorrect, and the reasons recorded do not specify a failure to disclose.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Atma Ram Properties v. DCIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment after four years · full and true disclosure · material facts for assessment · change of opinion · sanction under Section 151 · validity of reassessment · first proviso to Section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 144CSection 148Section 151Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 80IC

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituretrue and full disclosuresection 92basanction under section 151fresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147transfer pricing orderkelvinatorsection 148(2)material facts necessary for assessmentsanctioning authoritystrategic investment

Judgments citing Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3910/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes…

Rohit Manoj Mehra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71 1 New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2806/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…find that the PCIT rubber stamped the request made by the Assessing Officer for initiating assessment proceedings without applying his mind to the requisite aspects. 17. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in Atma Ram Properties Private Limited 343 ITR 141 has, inter alia, held that reasons recorded do state that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose the facts but do not indicate why and how the assessee had failed to make full and true disclosure of material facts. 18. Mere repetition or quoting the language of the proviso is not sufficient. The basis of averment/ statement should…

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…i Inter trade (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) • CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. [2008]171 Taxman 379 (Del) • Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT: [2008] 308 ITR 38 (Del) • Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2011] 343 ITR 141 (Del) • CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) • Best Cyber city India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: [2019] 414 ITR 385 (Del) 15. By considering the above facts and circumstances and by following the above judicial pronouncements (supra) on the issue in hand, we find merit in the Ground No. 3 of the Appeal on the issue of limitation and in…

Nishit Fincap P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1424/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(1)Section 153CSection 68

…the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the reasons do not satisfy which material facts the assessee failed to disclose during the original proceedings. 19. I find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 343 ITR 141 (Del.) has held as under:- “15. The reasons recorded above do state that the appellant assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose the facts but do not indicate why and how the assessee had failed to make full and true disclosure of the material facts. Mere repletion or quoting the language of the proviso is not sufficient. The basis of the…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…nditions provided in proviso to section 147 of the Act. The reasons must indicate why and how the assessee had failed to make full and disclosure of the material facts. In the following judgments, it has been luded by Jurisdictional High Courts as under : a) 343 ITR 141 (Del) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT. 15. The reasons recorded above do state that the appellant assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose the facts but do not indicate why and how the assessee had failed to make full and true disclosure of the 41 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. material facts. Mere…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…of change of opinion of the AO, is without jurisdiction and erroneous, the appeal preferred by the Revenue has rightly been dismissed as having become infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (iii) DCIT v/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. C…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…of change of opinion of the AO, is without jurisdiction and erroneous, the appeal preferred by the Revenue has rightly been dismissed as having become infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (iii) DCIT v/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. C…

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 GM Overseas, Vs ACIT, A-2/132, Prateek Apartments, Circle-48(1), Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFG2529A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2019 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to assess…

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…come-tax (OSD) (2012) 348 ITR 335 (Bom) (HC). 6. Sun Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2012) 344 ITR 0001 (Del) (HC). 7. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). 8. CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) (HC). 9. BLB Limited vs. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Del) (HC). 10. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 534 (Bom) (HC). 11. Voltas Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom) (HC). 12 ITA.No.6022/Del./2016 M/s. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi. 12.Rose Serviced Apartments Pvt.…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 5138/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, M/s. Maharaji Education Vs. Trust, Central Circle : 6, No. 1 – Santosh Nagar, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad – 201 009. PAN: AAATM5225F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, C. A. Department by: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]– DR Date of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 13/10/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is fi…

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

…33. Abdul Rahman Sail. 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) 34. Asteroids Trading and Investment P. Ltd, 308 ITR 190 (Bom) 35. Jyoti Devi. 218 CTR 80 (Bom) 36. Cartini India Ltd. 224 CTR 82 (Bom) 37. Mittal Casting Ltd, 124 Taxman 11 (Del) 38. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 141 (DEL) 39. Satnam Overseas. 228 CTR 121 (Del) 40. Ashok Mittal, 224 Taxman 55 (Del) 41. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Del) 42. Sheo Nath Singh. 82 ITR 148 (SC) document1 43. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd, 130 ITR 1. 11 (SC) 44. Birla VXL, 217 ITR 1 (Gujrat) 45. Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) 46. Garden Finance Limited, 268 ITR 48(Guj…

Smt Ruchika Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. M/s Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 264 (Raj) (iii) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) (iv) DCIT Vs Purolator (2012) 343 ITR 155 (Del) (v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom) (vi) Desai Bros Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bom) (vii) Bhot Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom) (viii) CIT (Addl.) Vs. IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del) (ix) CIT Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.). For the addition, it was contended by the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supertech (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7012/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs M/S Supertech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle -13, New Delhi. 2/19, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. Pan: Aaac0082K

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ned AO that any such information was unearthed either at the time of recording to assessment order or during the appellate proceedings. 11. Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in the case of (i) Atma Ram Properties, 343 ITR 141 (Del); (ii) HCL Technologies, 397 ITR 469; and (iii) Sabh Infrasturcture Ltd. vs ACIT, 100 CCH 28 (Del) to the effect that mere mentioning of language in reasons is not enough to say that there is any failure on the part o the assessee to disclosed the material facts fully and truly. 12. In view of our discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 2.27. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 were held to be valid. Likewise,…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 5.23. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 were held to be valid. Likewise…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 5.23. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 were held to be valid. Likewise…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 5.23. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 were held to be valid. Likewise…

M/S. Dsc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Dsc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle -15, E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacd0003D ( Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 .10.2018 O R D E R Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10Th November 2014 In Appeal No.97/2014-15 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, New Delhi For Asstt. Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Execution Of Contractual Works Including The Extension Of Widening Of Highways, Construction Of Flyovers, Culverts

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…171 Taxman 379 Indian Fertilizer Co-op Ltd. i) j) 303 ITR 155 CIT V Indian Sugar and Gen. Inds Exim Corpn k) 324 ITR 234 DT and TDC Ltd. vs. ACIT 1) 308 ITR 22 Wei Inter-trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO m) 308 ITR 38 Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT 6 n) 343 ITR 141 Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT o) 215 Taxman 441 Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd.vs.ITO p) 354 ITR 24 CIT vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd. q) [2009] 119 ITD 175 (Del) M.M.T.C. Ltd. vs. DCIT r) [2009] 184 TAXMAN 1 (Del) Jal Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. Asst.DIT 9. In this matter, the original assessment was completed by order dated 15.10.2008 asses…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 2.26. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 we…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…puty CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 2.26. In Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del), as the books of account and other material were not produced and no letter was filed, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessment year 2001-02 would constitute 'information' or material from any external source and, as such, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 were held to be valid. Likewise,…