Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI

378 ITR 596High Court2015#3383 most cited

What is Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the assessment order is passed within four weeks of the disposal of objections, as this does not provide the assessee with adequate time. The assessment order is bad in law and void in such circumstances.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 142(1) · reopening of assessment · objection disposal time · four weeks period · bad in law

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1) of the IT Act

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentmaterial facts necessary for assessmentnon application of mindkelvinatorbusiness connectionsection 149(1)live linkreopening of assessment

Judgments citing Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI

Ashish N. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarashish N. Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 41(4)(1) 1501, Anmol Enclave Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc S.V Road, Goregoan, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 062. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aazpg7658K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…erefore, the assessment order passed within four weeks from the date of disposal of objection is bad in law and void. Reliance is placed on the decision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC),s Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bombay (HC) and Asian Paints v. Dy. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 by merely relying on the information received by his office from Dy. Director (Inv.) Unit- 6(2), Mumbai without understandi…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…essee after rejection of the objection of the assessee. The assessment is bad in law. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Asian paints ltd, Vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 High Court of Bombay. (ii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (2015) 378 ITR 596 High Court of Bombay (iii) Aroni Commercial Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 High Court of Bombay (iv) Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT (2015) 68SOT 205 ITAT Mumbai Bench 14. In the case in hand notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14- 12-2021 & 20-01-2021and the assessee was filed his reply on 22-01- 2022. The Ld. AO had decided the objection by…

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

ITA 149/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

Section 45(4)

…ections at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is distinguishable on the facts and not applicable to the present case.” Further, it was held that, “…

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 45(4)

…ections at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is distinguishable on the facts and not applicable to the present case.” Further, it was held that,…

Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…to the material on record. (CIT v. Mahesh Chand (1993) 199 ITR 247 (All.) 18. Where the Order passed within four weeks from date of rejection of assessee’s objections-Reassessment was held to be bad in law in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.). 19. An assessment done purely by making a guess and without evidence is bad and to be set aside vide Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). An Assessment made on mere conjecture, Surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is bad and unsustainable in law. 20. Moreover, it is submitt…

Nirmal Singh, Ayodhya vs. ITO Ward-1, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…09.2021. - Not disposed off within reasonable time but disposed off on 29.03.2022, a day before the passing of the final Assessment Order. Not permitted – (i) GKN Driveshaft (India)Ltd. vs. CIT 259 ITR 19 (SC) (attached) (ii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. UOI - 378 ITR 596 (Bombay) (attached) > Response filed to Notices as issued u/s.142(1) from time to time. > No Notice u/s.143(2) issued by NFAC as required as per section 144B(1) of the Act. > Issue of Notice u/s.143(2) by NFAC is sine qua non. Any assessment framed without issue of notice u/s.143(2) by NFAC, makes the order passed by NFAC © and without jurisdicti…

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ons at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is distinguishable on the facts and not applicable to the present case, whereas, the Hon’ble Madra…

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ons at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is distinguishable on the facts and not applicable to the present case, whereas, the Hon’ble Madra…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…(v) Commissioner of Income-tax -Vs- Batra Bhatta Company reported in [2010] 321 ITR 526 (Del)- (vi) Chhugamri Rajpal -Vs- S.P.Chaliha And Others reported in (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC). (vii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs. Union of India And Others reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom). (viii) Aroni Commercials Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax And Another reported in [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bom). (ix) Asian Paints Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax And Another reported in [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bom). (x) Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) (P) Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2023]…

Jindal Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 32(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9535/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…assessee. The answer is given by the coordinate bench in the case of Metaplast Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 5780/DEL/2014 wherein the coordinate bench has considered the judgment of the Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in the case 5 of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 378 ITR 596. The relevant finding reads as under: " Further in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayant Patel (Supra), learned AO should have allowed four weeks' time to the assessee to seek their legal remedies after rejection of the objection of the assessee. In view of the fact that the AO has disposed of the obje…

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1984/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1984/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2014-15] Jaguar and Company Pvt Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T C – 20, SMA, Co-op Industrial Estate Circle - 19 G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACJ 2324 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Department By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein Supreme Court interalia held the AO has power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment.…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein Supreme Court interalia held the AO has power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment.…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein Supreme Court interalia held the AO has power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment.…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein Supreme Court interalia held the AO has power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment.…

M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: AACCC4836D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICI…

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…wing judgments the various Benches of the ITAT and Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that if the AO has not waited for four weeks after the passing of order on the objections of the assessee then action of 148 is not tenable. a. Bharat Jyanti Lai Shah Vs UOI 378 ITR 596(Bom) b. Kamlesh Goel Vs ITO - ITA NO-5730/2Q17 dated 30.08.2018 c. Meta Plast Engeineering Vs ITO -ITA No-5780/Del/2014 d. FGR Logistics Vs ACIT ITA No-4560/Del/2019- dated 01.01.2021 12. He submitted that the assessee further seeks to rely on the judgment of the coordinate bench in Kuber Group wherein the ITAT has quashed the assessment framed…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7371/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ngineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (HUF) v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4999/Mum/2018 dated 08.12.2020 and T…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7370/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ngineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (HUF) v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4999/Mum/2018 dated 08.12.2020 and T…

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7368/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ngineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (HUF) v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4999/Mum/2018 dated 08.12.2020 and T…