Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers v. ITO

69 ITR 461High Court1968#9124 most cited

What is Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers v. ITO authority for?

An addition to income during reassessment proceedings must be confined to the grounds that justified the reopening of the assessment.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT · reassessment · reopening · section 147 · section 148 · scope of reassessment · grounds for reopening · addition outside scope

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69CSection 147Section 148Section 153DSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentsection 55(2)anonymous donationsection 139(9)section 49section 153(c)section 164third party information

Judgments citing Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers v. ITO

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…mitted that it is settled law that it is reasons alone which are to be looked into to justify the reopening ofproceedings U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard is being placed, among others, on the following judgments: (amna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461 (All), Equitable Investment Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 174 ITR 714 (Cal), Baldev Singh Giane Vs. CIT 248 ITR 266 (P&H), Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Others Vs. ITO 176 ITR 352 (369), CIT Vs. Aggarwalla Brothers 189 ITR 786 (Pat), Girdhar Gopal Gulati Vs. UOI 182 Taxation 616 (All), Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. ACIT 182 Taxation 584 (Raj). In case the reasons record…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (Raj) BanswaraSyntex Ltd. v. ACIT x) 174 ITR 741 (Cal) Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. xi) W.P. NO. 2192/2009 dated 20.8.2011 (Uttarakhand) M/s National Petroleum Construction Co. vs. UOI xii) 319 ITR 282 (Guj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (Raj) BanswaraSyntex Ltd. v. ACIT x) 174 ITR 741 (Cal) Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. xi) W.P. NO. 2192/2009 dated 20.8.2011 (Uttarakhand) M/s National Petroleum Construction Co. vs. UOI xii) 319 ITR 282 (Guj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (Raj) BanswaraSyntex Ltd. v. ACIT x) 174 ITR 741 (Cal) Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. xi) W.P. NO. 2192/2009 dated 20.8.2011 (Uttarakhand) M/s National Petroleum Construction Co. vs. UOI xii) 319 ITR 282 (Guj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (Raj) BanswaraSyntex Ltd. v. ACIT x) 174 ITR 741 (Cal) Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. xi) W.P. NO. 2192/2009 dated 20.8.2011 (Uttarakhand) M/s National Petroleum Construction Co. vs. UOI xii) 319 ITR 282 (Guj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions. 76 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions. 76 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions. 76 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions. 76 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…to be viewed as they are and they cannot be supported by reference to any extraneous materials. The reason recorded must either stand or fall on the reasons as recorded alone and nothing else. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held that: “It is needless to mention that the reasons are…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…to be viewed as they are and they cannot be supported by reference to any extraneous materials. The reason recorded must either stand or fall on the reasons as recorded alone and nothing else. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held that: “It is needless to mention that the reasons are…

Premwati Suman, Agra vs. ITO-1(3), Agra

In the result both appeals are allowed

ITA 393/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, HIG Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. PAN: BNVPS9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, HIG Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. PAN: BNLPS9622P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, AR Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2019 ORDER Per Dr.M. L. Meena, A. M.: Both these appeals, filed…

Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers v. ITO (69 ITR 461) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax