CIT (2017- TIOL-603-HC-DEL-IT-), Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwala Trust v. ITO

109 ITR 537Supreme Court of India1977#4441 most cited

What is CIT (2017- TIOL-603-HC-DEL-IT-), Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwala Trust v. ITO authority for?

When the Assessing Officer (AO) has sufficient reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, reassessment proceedings under section 147 are valid.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwala Trust v. ITO · 109 ITR 537 · Section 147 · reasons to believe · escaped assessment · reassessment proceedings · income escaping assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(viia)section 56(1)dcf methodsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharesshare capital and share premiummere change of opinionicdschange of opinionsection 56(2)fair market valueshare application money

Judgments citing CIT (2017- TIOL-603-HC-DEL-IT-), Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwala Trust v. ITO

M/S. Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2943/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sh. Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…17 80 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi) - Thakorbhai Manganbhai Patel vs. ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 SC - Aravali INfrapower Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT). - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. 236 ITR 34 - RK Malhotra ITO vs. Kasturba Lalbahi (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) - ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) - Ankit Financial Servicse Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that ground nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee are legal grounds challenging the validity of assessment u…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…Patel vs. ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 SC - Aravali INfrapower Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT). - Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) SC - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. 236 ITR 34 - RK Malhotra ITO vs. Kasturba Lalbahi (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) - CIT vs. PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 103 Taxman 294 (SC) - ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) - Yuvraj vs. Union Of India 315 ITR 84 SC - Ankit Financial Servicse Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) - Pee Aar Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 4978/Del/2014 dated 23.8.2018 - Sonia G…

Billo, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. Pan: Bakpb9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ly to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage R.K. Malhotra ITO Vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 15. where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 16. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [I999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC/[999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit…

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6657/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-5(2), M/S Century Metal New Delhi Vs. Recycling Pvt. Ltd., W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 36/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 6657/Del/2017) Ay: 2009-10 M/S Century Metal Acit, Circle-5(2), Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh,CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…oved obtained u/s 151 of the Act, action was in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO 227 Taxman 374 (SC) ii) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO 236 ITR 34 iii) R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasutrbhai Lalbhai 109 ITR 537 (SC) iv) ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 210 CTR 30 (SC) v) Yuvraj v. UOI 315 ITR 84 (SC) vi) Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. v. PCIT 2017 TIOL 253 SC-IT 7 Apart from the above, the ld. AR contended that even the approval granted was mechanical and therefore not valid. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) ITA No. 335/…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…sis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency of correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 23. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai reported in 109 ITR 537, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the intimation which the 14 Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute “information” within the meaning of section 147(b). 24. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. report…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 1190/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…part of assessee to furnish all material facts necessary for assessment. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). Reymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34 (SC) (ii). Yuvraj vs. Union of India(Bom), 315 ITR 84. (iii). R.K. Malhotra vs. ITO, 109 ITR 537 (SC). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, relevant material on record and the decisions cited by both the parties. In the instant case, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were admittedly initiated by the ld. AO after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. As such the reassessment in the instant case has…