CIT v. Atul Jain

299 ITR 383High Court2008#683 most cited

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.

147

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Atul Jain · section 147 · reassessment · vague information · scanty information · lack of nexus · bogus entries · accommodation entries · tangible material · borrowed satisfaction

Also reported as

164 Taxmann 33

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 142(1)Section 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147oftrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151section 148(2)material facts necessary for assessmentborrowed satisfactionfirst proviso to section 147fresh tangible materialsanctioning authoritysection 151(1)live linknon application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Jain

Omprakash Daruka, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 685/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 149Section 151

…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 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 information supplied was extremely scanty and…

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

…Thus, it is clearly established that reasons have been recorded without any application of mind. 2.1. Your honour's kind attention is further invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vineeta Jain and CIT vs. Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383, wherein the Court held that mere statement containing unproved / unverified facts cannot be a substitute for reasons required to berecorded under section 148 of the Act. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, it will kindly be appreciated that in the present case, too, the assessing officer has merely 12 Jaiprakash…

M/S Vinayak Financial Consultants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsyan & Shri RobinFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…re the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision by the ITAT by dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. (vl) While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Atul Jain [299 ITR 383 (Del)), in the case of ACT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [(2007) 291 ITR 0500] and also some other judicial pronouncements and eventually held as under: "9. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax…

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 148

…e Court in the case of 'ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das' reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.' reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of 'CIT vs. Atul Jain' reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H)." 15. There is one more dimension to our main limb of argument. It is pertinent to note that the reason for re-opening talks about income escaping assessment of Rs. 20,00,000/- which the Assessing Officer has ass…

ITO Ward - 20(1), New Delhi vs. Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the assessment order passed in the present case is quashed as invalid

ITA 9441/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…fore us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that in any case he wishes to raise a legal ground before us and in terms of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 299 ITR 383 (SC) holding that a legal ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, he requested admission of the ground raised before us. 8. We have heard both the parties and we have gone through the Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules as per which respondent is given right to defend the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising issues, which were decided against…

Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Delhi)/[2013] 219 Taxman 111 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi)[20-05-2013] x) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 (Delhi)/[2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi)[21-07-2011] xi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi)[23-05- 2007] xii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 69 (Delhi)[27-04-2010] xiii) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC)[23-05-2007] 7. It is alleged that if the L…

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

…SS Pillai vs KS Pillai AIR 1972 SC 2069 (Hon’ble SC) - CIT vs R.Ponnammal 164 ITR 706 (Hon’ble Madras High Court) - R. Manohar in ITA No 138/MDS/2010 (Chennai Tribunal) - Jothi Rakesh Kapoor vs ITO, ITA No.583/Mum/2018 (Mumbai Trib) - CIT vs Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court) - Mrs. Urmila Mahesh Nathani Vs. ITO, ITA No.5921/Mum/2012 (Mumbai Tribunal) - Sonal A.Zaveri vs.ITO, ITA No.5968/Mum/2013(Mumbai Trib) - DCIT-2 (3), Mumbai Vs. Shri Paras D. Gundecha 2015 (10) TMI 2120 – ITAT Mumbai Further, the assessee stated that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in our case did not reach any conclus…

DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2016-17 Nse Clearing Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 051. Pan : Aaacn2642L (Appellant) : A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Nse Clearing Limited Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Mumbai. (Appellant) Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. (Respondent) Pan : Aaacn2642L

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 14A

…Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee had not made such a claim in the return of income. In support of this contention, the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (299 ITR 383)(SC) and also the Circular No.14 (XL- 35) dated 11-04-1955 issued by CBDT. It was further submitted that the revised working of disallowance u/s 14A was made in the light of decision rendered by ITAT in the assessee’s own case in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. It also relied upon various case laws in support of its contentions. 5.3 The Ld CIT(A) passed…

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1372 & 2006/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, The ITO (Exemptions), 142/4, 3rd Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Ward-2, Chengalpattu-603 001. Chennai. [PAN: AAATT 7636 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent b…

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(E), Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1372 & 2006/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, The ITO (Exemptions), 142/4, 3rd Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Ward-2, Chengalpattu-603 001. Chennai. [PAN: AAATT 7636 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent b…

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ion 147 of the Act. The Bench reproduced the initial issuance of notice and thereafter referred to the reasons for issue of notice under section 148 which was provided to the assessee. Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 192 (Delhi) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Co. [2008] 174 Taxman 444 (Delhi) and eventually held thus :— "9. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information re…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 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…

Purushottamlal Singhania, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 731/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 147Section 148

…ubmits that merely an information in the name of the complaint petition could not lead to an inference that the income has escaped assessment. The ld. Counsel has cited several decisions which are as follows: i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi)[23-05-2007] ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi)[27-04-2010] iii) Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC)[30-03-1976] iv) Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [1981] 6 Taxman 14 (SC)[23- 04-1981] v) Subhash Chander Goel vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward…

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.l497/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. Central Circle-18, RZ-D-5, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi - 110 045 New Delhi PAN No. AAKCS 1029 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Shri Parash Biswal, Adv. And Assessee by Shri Deepanshu Mehta, Adv. Shri Surender Pal, CIT-D.R. Revenue by Date of hearing: 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ; The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the R…

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…444 (Del.)-SLP dismissed in 320 ITR 24 PCIT v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited: ITA No.689 of 2016 (Del.) - Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT: 184 Taxman 210 (Del.) - Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 272 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT vs. Vineeta Jain and CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) - CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285 (Del) - Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 161 (Bom) - Hindutan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) - - BhogwatiSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. vs. DCIT: 269 ITR 186 (Bom) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 200 (Bom) - Grindwell Norton vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 673 (Bom) - - CIT v. Abd…

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…I.T.A.Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 बनाम CHAMPION BUILDER PVT. LTD. ITO, 5, J.B.S., Halden Avenue, Vs. Ward-1(3), Silver Arcade, 2nd Floor, Room No.52, Gurgaon, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700105 Haryana. PAN No.AAACC0281G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Manoj Kataruka, Adv. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 01.07.2024 21.08.2024 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/P…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…e Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That the Assessing Officer has not discussed a single evidence/document furnished…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1172/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…e Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That the Assessing Officer has not discussed a single evidence/document furnished…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…e Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That the Assessing Officer has not discussed a single evidence/document furnished…