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)

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

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1170/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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…

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…t without making any further enquiry 4 I.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. including the examination of the income tax return filed by the assessee. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Shri Atul Jain [299 ITR 383 (Delhi)] ii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285 (Delhi)] iii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Delhi)] iv) PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] v) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [396 ITR 5 (Del)] vi) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)] 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently…

M/S. Mukesh Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) M/S Mukesh Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, 180, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700007, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm7276R Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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…

The Hamlet, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…ITA No. 70/Bang/2023 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAAFT6690D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Kincha, CA : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT - Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order dat…

Hartron Sase Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 1064/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…canty and vague reasons are illegal and bad in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed. The ld. AR has placed reliance on various judgments and others including judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Shri Atul Jain 299 ITR 383(Delhi), Signature Hotels 3 P. Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) and judgment in the case of CIT vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi), in support of above legal contentions. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the above submissions of ld. counsel of assessee and submitted that the copy of the re…

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

…place then the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has to be held as not valid and justified in the eyes of law. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels P. Ltd. (supra). 7. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of reassessment proceedings and other material available on record, at the very outset, for the sake of completeness to our findings, we find it appropriate to reproduced the reasons recor…

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

…place then the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has to be held as not valid and justified in the eyes of law. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels P. Ltd. (supra). 7. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of reassessment proceedings and other material available on record, at the very outset, for the sake of completeness to our findings, we find it appropriate to reproduced the reasons recor…

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

…place then the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has to be held as not valid and justified in the eyes of law. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels P. Ltd. (supra). 7. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of reassessment proceedings and other material available on record, at the very outset, for the sake of completeness to our findings, we find it appropriate to reproduced the reasons recor…

Tej Singh, Mathura vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mathura

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

ITA 8/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…lief required by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court.” 4.1 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain & Smt. Vinita Jain, 299 ITR 383 held – “There must be “reason to believe” warranting the issuance of a notice of reassessment by the Assessing Officer. If there are no reasons, then the entire foundation for initiating the proceedings is bad and the notice initiating proceedings must be quashed. Mere satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for the issuance of a notice is not eno…

Manish Parasrampuria, Kolkata vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., Circle-43, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 654/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

…with the material on record inasmuch as the income of the assessee has not escaped assessment. In this regard, we place our reliance on the following judgments: 15 Manish Parasrampuria AY 2015-16 (i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) held that wherein the reasons recorded were vague and not proper, Ld. AO had not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical matter, entire reassessment order was liable to be quashed. (ii) In the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Br…

Captain Steel India Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Kejriwal & Shri SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 80J

…nch of High Court of Bombay in PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD. supra, has dealt with the powers of the Appellate Authorities. The division bench of the High Court after noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT, 299 ITR 383 (SC) has held that in the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has not held anything contrary to what was held in Goetze (India) Ltd. and has reaffirmed the legal position that even if the claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the Appellate Authorities and jurisdiction of the Appellate Authorities to entertain such…

Kalinga Cables and Conduits Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-41(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sabharwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…be made a basis for holding that provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid grounds are legal and deserve to be admitted in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT, 299 ITR 383 (SC). The ld. AR also placed reliance on 3 ITA.No.26/Del./2019 the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT (E) vs. Ajay G. Piramal Foundation, 228 Taxman 332 (Del) and submitted that the ground which can be adjudicated on the basis of the material available on record and goes to the root of the matter being legal,…