What is CIT v. Atul Jain authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 are not valid if the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer is vague, scanty, and lacks specific details linking it to the assessee's transactions.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Atul Jain?

147 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Atul Jain (299 ITR 383), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Atul Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 151, Section 143(3), Section 143(1), Section 250.

CIT v. Atul Jain (299 ITR 383)

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…00 (Del) - Pr. CIT vs RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 1TR 5 (Del) - PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) - PCIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) - CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del) - CIT vs. Vinceta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del) 19. In the facts of the present case, the reasons recorded stated that the name of appellant company appeared in the list of beneficiaries of client code modification alleged to be undertaken by some brokers. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that: P a g e | 11 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) - The reassessment proceedings…

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…erification to reach the conclusion. The Assessing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got…

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…erification to reach the conclusion. The Assessing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got…

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…erification to reach the conclusion. The Assessing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Renewables (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 29 (Bombay) 5 Pr. CIT vs. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bombay) M/s Geetatax vs. DCIT (Special Civil Application No. 20977 of 2016-Rajasthan High Court) CIT vs. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Del) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 (Delhi) NCOME TAX DEPARTMEN Delhi) 5.2 The assessee further argues that mere reliance on third-party statements and unverified reports, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination or independent inquiry, cannot form a valid basis for making the addition. The lack of con…

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…n of any bogus/accommodation transaction, without any link/ nexus with the specific transaction of the assessee. [Refer, ITO vs. Lakhmami Mewal Dax: 103 ITR 437 (SC), CIT vs. United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd 258 ITR 317 (Del), CIT 1. Vineeta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del), Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. ITO. 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del), Revolution Forver Marketing (P) Lad. v. ITO 413 ITR 400 (Del) and CIT vs. And Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) In the reasons recorded, no tangible information/ material has been highlighted that may even throw any doubt on the genuineness of the…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…n of any bogus/accommodation transaction, without any link/ nexus with the specific transaction of the assessee. [Refer, ITO vs. Lakhmami Mewal Dax: 103 ITR 437 (SC), CIT vs. United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd 258 ITR 317 (Del), CIT 1. Vineeta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del), Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. ITO. 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del), Revolution Forver Marketing (P) Lad. v. ITO 413 ITR 400 (Del) and CIT vs. And Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) In the reasons recorded, no tangible information/ material has been highlighted that may even throw any doubt on the genuineness of the…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…n of any bogus/accommodation transaction, without any link/ nexus with the specific transaction of the assessee. [Refer, ITO vs. Lakhmami Mewal Dax: 103 ITR 437 (SC), CIT vs. United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd 258 ITR 317 (Del), CIT 1. Vineeta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del), Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. ITO. 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del), Revolution Forver Marketing (P) Lad. v. ITO 413 ITR 400 (Del) and CIT vs. And Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) In the reasons recorded, no tangible information/ material has been highlighted that may even throw any doubt on the genuineness of the…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…n of any bogus/accommodation transaction, without any link/ nexus with the specific transaction of the assessee. [Refer, ITO vs. Lakhmami Mewal Dax: 103 ITR 437 (SC), CIT vs. United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd 258 ITR 317 (Del), CIT 1. Vineeta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del), Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. ITO. 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del), Revolution Forver Marketing (P) Lad. v. ITO 413 ITR 400 (Del) and CIT vs. And Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) In the reasons recorded, no tangible information/ material has been highlighted that may even throw any doubt on the genuineness of the…

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…n of any bogus/accommodation transaction, without any link/ nexus with the specific transaction of the assessee. [Refer, ITO vs. Lakhmami Mewal Dax: 103 ITR 437 (SC), CIT vs. United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd 258 ITR 317 (Del), CIT 1. Vineeta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del), Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. ITO. 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del), Revolution Forver Marketing (P) Lad. v. ITO 413 ITR 400 (Del) and CIT vs. And Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) In the reasons recorded, no tangible information/ material has been highlighted that may even throw any doubt on the genuineness of the…

Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 717/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…that such reopening of assessment was bad in law, being based on borrowed satisfaction. To support this contention, reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), CIT v. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 248 CTR 33 (Delhi), Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel v. ITO (Gujarat High Court, ITA No. 12873 of 2014, dated 13.10.2015), and Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). The assessee further submitted that all transactions of purchase and sale of shares were genuine and…

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

…sed thereupon is invalid and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decisions of CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi), Girishbhai Dahyabhai Patel vs. DCIT (2025) 474 ITR 299, CIT Vs. Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadekar (2004) 137 taxman 479 (Bom). We also note that there is no independent application of mind by the Id. AO to the information received and therefore, this is at best a case of borrowed satisfaction by the Id. Assessing Officer. Considering these facts and circumstances and in the light of aforesaid…

Pradeep Biharising Bundele, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 754/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 69

…before us. So far as the admission of legal issue at the stage of this Tribunal is concerned, we find that the said legal grounds needs to be admitted in light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 299 ITR 383 (SC). However, this legal issue was not raised before ld.CIT(A). 6. The issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the ground raised before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherei…

Mr. Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1637/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…se of hearing before this Tribunal, ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised a legal issue by raising additional ground and after going through the same I find that the same deserves to be admitted in light of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 299 ITR 383 (SC). 8. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT (supra) where also similar issue came for adjudication and for the notice issued for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 prior to 31.03.2021, Hon’ble Court has held that under the old…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)

…with regard to the amount and nature of bogus entries and transactions and the persons with whom the transactions had taken place. In this respect, we may rely upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Atul Jain [2000] 299 ITR 383, in which case the information relied upon by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act did indicate sites of the capital gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details available and the information supplied was extremely scanty and vague…

M/S Lorgan Lifestyle Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 215/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B S RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.215/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Lorgan Lifestyle Limited, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Flat No. 6, Raghukul Apartments, Pune Senapati Bapat Road, Govt. Polytechnic S.O, Pune-411016, Maharashtra PAN: AACCL3218Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri B S Rajpurohit Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at t…

Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd…….……………..............................……….……Appellant 7, Camac Street, Azimganj House, 1St Floor, Shakespeare Sarani, Kol- 700017. [Pan: Aacca3794N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 03, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ith regard to the amount and nature of bogus entries and transactions and the persons with whom the transactions had taken place. In this respect, we may rely upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain (2000) 299 ITR 383, in which case the information relied upon by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act did indicate the source of the capital gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details available and the 5 Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd information suppli…

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…nd without recording his own independent satisfaction on the basis of such independent verification deserves to be held illegal. In this regard further reliance is placed on judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atul Jain (Delhi) reported in 299 ITR 383 where in Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue by stating below reasons:- Looked at in the light of the decisions placed before us and the law laid down therein, it is necessary to appreciate the information available with the Assessing Officer in the present case. The only information is that the assessed had taken a bogus entry…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

…cation deserves to be held illegal. 28 ITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025 Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur. In this regard further reliance is placed on judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atul Jain (Delhi) reported in 299 ITR 383 where in Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue by stating below reasons:- Lookedat in the light of the decisions placed before us and the law laid down therein, it is necessary to appreciate the information available with the Assessing Officer in the present case. The only information is that the assessed had taken a bogus entry…

Bharat Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bharat Jaisinghani Dcit, Central Circle 1302/B, Beau Monde 5(2), Room No. 427 Appasaheb Marathe Marg Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Prabhadevi, Mumbai-25 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aeipj0261N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA, Shri

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 55Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…he ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has filed detailed written submissions and relied on several cases-law for the proposition that a new claim can be made before the appellate authorities for the first time also. It was argued that the decision of NTPC Ltd. 299 ITR 383 (SC) and Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) (SC) support his view. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision of Nirmala L. Mehta (267 ITR 1) (Bombay) for the proposition that the tax authorities should correctly compute the income and consequent tax liability. Thus, it was argued that 4 the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in dismissing the appe…

CIT v. Atul Jain

What is CIT v. Atul Jain authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Jain

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals P.Ltd, Delhi

Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

Pradeep Biharising Bundele, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

Mr. Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) Pune, Pune

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

M/S Lorgan Lifestyle Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(4), Pune

Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

Bharat Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai