CIT (Exemption) v. Monarch Educational Society 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6636/

387 ITR 416High Court2016#5993 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 43

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 148ASection 151

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 13(1)(b)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 164section 11(5)section 148(2)section 13(1)(c)maximum marginal ratesection 13(1)survey under section 133aincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT (Exemption) v. Monarch Educational Society 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6636/

SHRI PARASRAM COMMODITIES PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-23(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4630/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “B”NEWDELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Parasram Commodities Vs. Deputy Commissioner Private Limited Income Tax Circle-23(1) Gupta Chamber B-7 Nirmri New Delhi, Delhi 110002 Shopping Centre Bharat Nagar New Delhi-110052 PAN No. AAACS4492D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri, Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr.DR Date of hearing 11.02.2026 Date of 18.03.2026 pronouncement ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR JM: The assessee preferred the appeal, challenging the o…

DHARAM CHAND AGARWAL,KANPUR (UTTAR PARDESH) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. PAN: AANPA1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. Pr. CIT, Kanpur-1 on 31.03.2024 under section 263 of t…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. VRINDA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4849/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Central Circle 4, Vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi. 43, Community Centre, Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) Co Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4849/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vrinda Farms Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 4, 43, Community Centre, New Delhi. Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 29.10.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 68

…9IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Central Circle 4, vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi. 43, Community Centre, Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (PAN : AAACV0355L) CO Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025 (in ITA No.4849/DEL/2024) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vrinda Farms Private Limited, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4, 43, Community Centre, New Delhi. Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (PAN : AAACV0355L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASS…

SH. ASHOK KUMAR,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…position which had been enunciated in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. We also bear in consideration the said decision having been affirmed and approved subsequently in CIT (Exemption) v. Monarch Educational Society 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6636/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 43/387 ITR 416 (Delhi) and CIT v. Software Consultants 2012 SCC On Line Del 316/[2012] 21 taxmann.com 155/211 Taxman 120/341 ITR 240 (Delhi). 30. We thus, come to the conclusion that the enunciation with respect to the indelible connection between Section 148A(b) and Section 148 A(d) of the Act are clearly not impacted by Explanation 3. As we read Sections 147…

MARVELOUS CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA No.4099 & 4100/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "E" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4099/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Flat No.305, 3rd Floor, Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAECM9931F APPELLANT VS Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), New Delhi RESPONDENT ITA No.4100/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Flat No.305, 3rd Floor, Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAECM9931F APPELLANT VS National e-Assessment Centr…

MARVELOUS CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA No.4099 & 4100/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAECM9931F APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., vs National e-Assessment Flat No.305, 3rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAECM9931F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ashwa…

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…in the (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, th…

VISHNU KUMAR,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT OR JCIT OR DCIT OR ASST. CIT OR ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BHARATPUR

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 85/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sh. Vishnu Kumar cuke ACIT/JCIT/DCIT/Asst.CIT/ITO, E221, RIICO Industrial Area, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Bharatpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIAPK7814L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Mukesh S…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…in the (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…in the (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is…

RITU GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, INTL TAX, GURUGRAM

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 297/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg & Arihant Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

…vide M/s Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida, a co-ordinate bench on which one of (the judicial member) was also in quorum has observed as follows :- “In the case of commissioner of Income Tax vs. Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expounded as follows: “8. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 ( Delhi) which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 ( Delhi). In sum, if no addition is made on…

VISHRAM SAHAKARI AWAS SAMITI LIMITED,G.NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1667/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…is abundantly clear that no addition was made on the recorded reasons but addition was made on some other issue, which is not permissible. In this regard, we rely on case law, in the case of commissioner of Income Tax vs. Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expounded as follows: “8. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). In sum, if no addition is made on…

AJ ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…ry, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.” 8. Further reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements: (i) Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) v. Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416, wherein its was held as under. “6. However, in the course of the reassessment proceedings, as is evident from the assessment order dated December 10, 2010 passed by the Assessing Officer, the sum that was sought to be added to the income of the assessee was not the aforementioned sum of 16,61,000 but a sum of 26,10,000 which according to the Ass…

DCIT, CC-06, NEW DELHI vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 79/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) & Put

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ts, etc., then in view of our discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as well.” 4.12 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCIT Vs Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416 (Delhi) held that if no addition is made in respect of issues recorded by Assessing Officer for reopening assessment, Assessing Officer cannot make addition on any other issue in reassessment proceedings. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: "8. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the Assessee by the dec…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…(2011) 336 ITR 136 11 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) 12 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) 15 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 16 T.C. (A) No. 1548 of 2008 17 (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) 18 (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) 19 (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) 20 (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 8 of 16 said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of t…

DUA HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8946/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…r Section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.” 11. This judgement of the Hon'ble High Court was again followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Monarch Education Society 387 ITR 416 wherein it was held as under: “6. However, in the course of the reassessment proceedings, as is evident from the assessment order dated December 10, 2010 passed by the Assessing Officer, the sum that was sought to be added to the income of the assessee was not the aforementioned sum of " 16,61,000 but a sum of 26,10,000 which according to the As…

JT. CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. N.K. PROTEINS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 489/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 489/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 489/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Jt.CIT(OSD) बनाम/ M/s. N. K. Proteins Pvt. Circle 3(1)(1), Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, Popular House, Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACN9377N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.DR Shri S. N. Soparkar, S…

ARIHANT TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5473/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Arihant Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Wz-284B, Lane-11, Lajwanti New Delhi Garden, New Delhi Pan No. Aadca6471D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133Section 142Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Arihant Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT WZ-284B, Lane-11, Lajwanti New Delhi Garden, New Delhi PAN No. AADCA6471D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ranjan Chopra, Advocate Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of hearing: 17/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.03.2019 passed u/s.263 of the IT Act for the A.Y.2009-10. 2. Facts…

SANGEETA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT WARD 62(5), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6133/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sangeeta Garg, Vs. Acit, Flat No.6, Shree Radha Apartments, Ward-62(5), Plot No.3, Sector-9, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Afmpg1036R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate & Shri Bankim Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th June, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 148

…on is made in respect of reasons given for reopening of assessment, it was not open to the AO to independently assess some other income. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(E) vs. Monarch Educational Society (2017) 387 ITR 416 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, in the said decision, has held that if no addition is made in respect of the issues recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment, the AO cannot make addition on any other issues in reassessment proceedings. He also relied on the following decisions for the above proposition:- (i) Rita Singh vs. I…

M/S PROSPEROUS BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, 17-B, Mgf House, Delhi-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadcp4389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Pramita Tripathy, Cit Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…e reasons. If it is established on record that there is no escapement of income for which the reasons were recorded, then in view of the two judgments, as aforesaid, no other issue could be examined by the AO. Similar view was held by the Hon’ble reported in 387 ITR 416 (Delhi), Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Additional CIT reported in 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) and CIT versus Cheil Communications India Private Limited reported in 354 ITR 549 (Delhi). 5.3 Thus, we are of the considered opinion the Ld. Pr. CIT could not have sought to revise an order passed under section 147 read with 143 (3) of the Act on an issue…