Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel v. ITO

56 DTR 212High Court2011#6514 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)sanctioning authorityfirst proviso to section 147reason to believeescapement of incometangible materialreopening of assessmentsection 131agricultural incomeunexplained investmentgenuineness of the transactionundisclosed income

Judgments citing Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel v. ITO

SHRI RAMESHBHAI N. SAVALIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ee are not sustainable. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the following decisions: (i) Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (ii) Prtakash Chand Nehta Vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) (iii) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (2011) 56 DTR 212 (Guj) (iv) Shankerlal Nagji & Co & Others Vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 90 (Guj) 6. As regards Ground No.2 related to disallowance of expenditure on agricultural income, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) totally ignored that the assessee was incurring these expenditures in the earlier assessment year as well and, therefore, the A…

MAHAVIR PRASAD JAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC ” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 662/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mahavir Prasad Jat cuke The ITO Vs. S/o Narayan Mal Jat Ward-Behror Let Ka Bas Shahpura, Jaipur Behror LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHPPJ 5461 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Mrs. Suhani Maharwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monis…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…amount to evidence: However, the mere existence of reasons for suspicion would not tantamount to evidence. But it should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work or on irrelevant or inadmissible material. (v) Bakul Bhai Raman Lal Patel vs. ITO 56 DTR 212(Guj) Reason to suspect cannot take place of reason to believe. 5. No enquiry has been made from the assessee by issuing of notice 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 or by deputing the inspector – In this case the Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition without service of notice on the assesee. Even he has not made any enquiry from the asses…

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Pushpa Chhajer Vs Asstt. A-56, S. R. Loonker and Commissioner of Company Shastri Nagar, Income Tax, Circle- Jodhpur 01, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. ABWPC 3839 L Assessee By Sh. Rajendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 06/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipu…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 1 & 2/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sampat Lal Lodha Vs Income Tax Gandhi Road, Officer, Nathdwara Ward-02, Rajsamand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AATPL 6272 A Assessee By Sh. Mukul Moondra, C.A. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the National Face…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 1 & 2/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sampat Lal Lodha Vs Income Tax Gandhi Road, Officer, Nathdwara Ward-02, Rajsamand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AATPL 6272 A Assessee By Sh. Mukul Moondra, C.A. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the National Face…

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 407/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 405 to 407/Rjt/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Girishkumar Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot Mohanlal Puruswani Vs 245-Royal Complex, (Appellant) Dhebar Road, Rajkot PAN: ADKPP3934F (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 21-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-01-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR…

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 406/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 405 to 407/Rjt/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Girishkumar Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot Mohanlal Puruswani Vs 245-Royal Complex, (Appellant) Dhebar Road, Rajkot PAN: ADKPP3934F (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 21-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-01-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR…

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 405 to 407/Rjt/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Girishkumar Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot Mohanlal Puruswani Vs 245-Royal Complex, (Appellant) Dhebar Road, Rajkot PAN: ADKPP3934F (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 21-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-01-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR…

M/S. SHREEM PACKAGING PRODUCTS P. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2280/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain-Ld.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…7-08 quite discernible that the quantum was nowhere mentioned in the reasons and therefore, the said decision is clearly distinguishable. That decision draw strength from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel V/s ITO (56 DTR 212 Guj) which has similar factual matrix and therefore, not applicable to the fact of the present case. 5.3 Another plea raised by Ld. AR is the fact that, as stated in para 3 of the recorded reasons, the assessee has not invested any amount in any of the entities rather the 3 entities made investment in the assessee and therefore, for the stated re…

SHRI SUMER S SANGHVI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1424/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 Sumer S. Sanghvi Acit, Cir.5 C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co Ahmedabad. Vs Chartered Accountants 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009 Pan : Ajfps 4778 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr & Shri J.K. Parikh, Ito सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR, and Shri J.K. Parikh, ITO
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 3

…notice issued under section 148 is within the limitation? He submitted that this notice is without jurisdiction. For buttressing his contentions, he made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ACIT, 56 DTR 212 (Guj). He placed on record copy of this decision. 5. In his next fold of contentions, he submitted that in the reasons for re- assessment, it is stated that there is transaction with Gold Star Finvest Securities Pvt Ltd., Mahasagar Securitis P.Ltd. which are engaged in providing accommodation entries in view of information supplied by the ITO, Wa…

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the for…

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the for…

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the for…

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the for…

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. PAN: AKVPR1777Q (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.: Present appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 28.02.2018, passed by the learned CIT(A)-I, Agra in the matter of assessment framed vide order date…

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…ITA Nos. 5163 & 5164/Del/2010 6 & ITA No. 5554/Del/2012 Halcrow Group Ltd. " Halcrow Group Ltd. Vs ADIT in ITA Nos. 5161 & 5162/Del/2010 order dated 20.05.2011 " CIT Vs Batra Bhatta Company (2010) 321 ITR 526 (Del.) " Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO (2011) 56 DTR 212 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. in SLP CC No. 1589/2013 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del.) " Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 023 (Del.) "…

DR. MEENA DIXIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6362/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…dingly the Learned AR submitted that the assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of any reason which gives suspicion that there was escapement of income. For this proposition, learned AR relied on following case laws :-  Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (56 DTR 212)  Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (375 ITR 460) 3 Dr. Meena Dixit Accordingly he submitted that the reopening of assessment is not valid for the above said reasons. 4. The Learned AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to examine transactions made with Standard Chartered Bank, investments made in RBI Bon…