Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT

409 ITR 124High Court2018#5289 most cited

What is Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT authority for?

When an assessment is accepted without scrutiny, the Assessing Officer has not formed an opinion and therefore the concept of 'change of opinion' is not applicable when reopening the assessment. The court will not minutely examine the potential additions at the stage of reassessment.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT · section 147 · change of opinion · borrowed satisfaction · reassessment · tangible material · escapement of income · fictitious transactions · income tax assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 4(1)section 147(a)section 292bbcolourable devicesection 292bborrowed satisfactionsection 292change of opinionshare application moneysection 29tangible materialescapement of income

Judgments citing Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT

EXCELLENCE FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

ITA 208/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of the AO was that assessee had incurred losses through\nfictitious transactions, the AO had reason to believe that its income had\nescaped assessment. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nPurviben Snehalbani Panchhigar [2019] 101 taxmann.com\n393(2018) 409 ITR 124 (Guj.) had an occasion to examine an\nidentical case. The Court has observed as under:-\n\"6. The return filed by the assessee were accepted without scrutiny, Since there\nwas no scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had to occasion to form any\nopinion on any of the issue arising out of the return filed by assessee. The concept\nof change o…

EXCELLENCE FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

ITA 207/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of the AO was that assessee had incurred losses through\nfictitious transactions, the AO had reason to believe that its income had\nescaped assessment. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nPurviben Snehalbani Panchhigar [2019] 101 taxmann.com\n393(2018) 409 ITR 124 (Guj.) had an occasion to examine an\nidentical case. The Court has observed as under:-\n\"6. The return filed by the assessee were accepted without scrutiny, Since there\nwas no scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had to occasion to form any\nopinion on any of the issue arising out of the return filed by assessee. The concept\nof change o…

EXCELLENCE FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

ITA 206/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of the AO was that assessee had incurred losses through\nfictitious transactions, the AO had reason to believe that its income had\nescaped assessment. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nPurviben Snehalbani Panchhigar [2019] 101 taxmann.com\n393(2018) 409 ITR 124 (Guj.) had an occasion to examine an\nidentical case. The Court has observed as under:-\n\"6. The return filed by the assessee were accepted without scrutiny, Since there\nwas no scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had to occasion to form any\nopinion on any of the issue arising out of the return filed by assessee. The concept\nof change o…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…hich are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi [ITA No.1881/DeI/2018] (h) Abhimanyu Soin vs. A…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ment. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 34. He also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar , 409 ITR 124 and Atul Ratilal Makadia, 94 taxmann.com 435 and Bombay High Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, 350 ITR 651. 9. Even on merits of the additions, ld. CIT (Departmental Representative) made detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (DR) further contended that ld .Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have granted…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ment. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 34. He also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar , 409 ITR 124 and Atul Ratilal Makadia, 94 taxmann.com 435 and Bombay High Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, 350 ITR 651. 9. Even on merits of the additions, ld. CIT (Departmental Representative) made detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (DR) further contended that ld .Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have granted…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ment. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 34. He also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar , 409 ITR 124 and Atul Ratilal Makadia, 94 taxmann.com 435 and Bombay High Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, 350 ITR 651. 9. Even on merits of the additions, ld. CIT (Departmental Representative) made detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (DR) further contended that ld .Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have granted…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ment. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 34. He also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar , 409 ITR 124 and Atul Ratilal Makadia, 94 taxmann.com 435 and Bombay High Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, 350 ITR 651. 9. Even on merits of the additions, ld. CIT (Departmental Representative) made detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (DR) further contended that ld .Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have granted…

SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1564/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Gangaiah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilajan Dey, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153(2)Section 68

…on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted a copy of the order sheet to highlight that Assessing Officer has reason to believe the escapement of income. Further, he relied on the case of Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar Vs. ACIT [409 ITR 124] (Guj) on the issue of addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us, assessee filed additional grounds of appeal, stressing the legal point that Assessing Officer cannot issue 148 notice when there is a time to issue 143(2) notice supported with :- 5 -: ITA Nos. 1562, 1…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT (409 ITR 124) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax