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 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 367,154 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 148 Section 147 Section 151 Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 68

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147of true and full disclosure sanction under section 151 section 148(2)material facts necessary for assessment borrowed satisfaction first proviso to section 147 fresh tangible material sanctioning authority section 151(1)live link non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Jain

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of holding the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Central Circle-23, Room No. Ltd., 359, E-2, Ara Centre, B-44, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Jangpura –B, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaace8941P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…minary investigation by the Assessing Officer prior to reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. He also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Atul Jain & Vinita Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) wherein it is held that a reopening without verifying correctness of the information received was illegal. But according to him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd versus ITO and Others has held that at the stage of initiation of reassessment proceeding, the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ot utilizable as ‘information’ within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. After the setting up of that foundation there ought to have been plausible reasons for the belief. This is stated on the authority of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 and CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). Besides there was no adverse material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to support a conviction of the gift not being genuine. Absent such material the conclusion was impermissible. Kindly refer CIT vs. Anupak Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 14. The digesting of the message from the Inve…

Naveen Bhatter, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2377/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Naveen Bhatter…………….........…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite -213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aeepb 9697 N] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-35, Kolkata………….…...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…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…

Sh. Chetan Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…Thanking you, Yours sincerely, (CA Rajeev K. Gupta) (Counsel) It was also stated in the said application that being a legal ground the same be admitted for adjudication in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Limited Vs. CIT, 299 ITR 383. 7. The Ld. DR did not object to the same. 8. Since the ground raised by the assessee is a legal ground challenging the validity of the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we hereby admit the same in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited (supra). 9. Further it was pointed out, as stated earlier, that…

M/S Deepraj Hospital P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 41/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 41/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd., C/o Vs..ITO, 3(5), Rajesh Gautam, Shyam Press, Hathras. Aligarh Road, Hathras. PAN No.AADCD2093G (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 40/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) M/s Charan Singh Ice & Cold Vs..ITO, 3(5), Storage (P) Ltd., Gambhir Patti, Hathras. Bisana, Agra Road, Hathras. PAN No.AACCC4321M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Pankaj Gargh, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 15.05.2018 Date of Pro…

M/S Charan Singh Ice & Storage P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S. Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Adhunik Cement Ltd., (Now Dalmia Bharat Cement), Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Shri Har Prasad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6084/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri C.M. Garg[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Ridge View Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T H-69, Ugf, Outer Circle Central Circle-18 Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaccr 8019 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .01.2018

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 36Section 37

…additional ground raised is a legal ground and all facts necessary to dispose off the said grounds are also on record and, therefore, the same be admitted in terms of judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT reported in 299 ITR 383 [SC]. It was also submitted that identical ground was also raised in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh in ITA No. 1436/DEL/2012 dated 5.11.2010 wherein the said ground was admitted and the said decision of the Tribunal stands affirmed by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh in ITA No. 337/2015 dated 11.…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 6054/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Aha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle- 6(1), (Formerly Known As Idream Aaykar Bhavan, Holding Pvt. Ltd.), M.K. Road, 161, Star City, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Manmala Tank Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai - 400016 Pan: Aafcs6404E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14Section 143Section 14A

…al and does not require any fresh verification of the Facts. After hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), we 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 admitted the additional ground in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 299 ITR 383 and allowed the Ld. counsel to argue on both the grounds. On merits the Ld. counsel submitted that since the assessee has made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,63,200/-, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the law laid down b…

K.P. International, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2246/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 K.P. International Ito F-47, Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. Ward-51(4) Market, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 K.P. International ITO F-47, Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. Ward-51(4) Market, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi PAN : AADFK9317K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jaspal Singh Sethu, Advocate Respondent by Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 24-08-2017 Date of pronouncement 050050 20.10.20170500 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 2.2.2017 of CIT(A)-17, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 a…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…rted in 338 ITR 51 Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO (v) 8 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. reported in [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) CIT vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] (vi) 206 Taxman 254 (DELHI) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (vii) 299 ITR 383 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del) 2. Proceedings under section 147 of the Act cannot be initiated on the basis of the stale information (Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (W.P.(C) 1608/2013 & CM Appl. 3024/2013 dated 14.02.2014). 3. Unless there is fresh materia…

Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1720/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 146Section 147Section 148Section 68

…TAT) G & G Pharma India Limited, ITA No. 3149/2013 dated 09.01.2015 (Case Laws P 26-33) Para 8 on Page 30. (DHC) Pr. CIT Vs. G & G Pharma India Limited, ITA No. 545/2015 dated 08.10.2015 (Case Laws P 34-37) Para 9 and 12 on Page 35 & 36. HC) CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Case Laws P 38-44) Para 17 page.” 4.2 Further, the Ld. counsel, referred to page 42 to 44 of the Revenue’s paper book and submitted that there was no identification of signature by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax on those documents and therefore the documents claimed to be the one as reasons recorded, was doubtful in itself. 4.2.1 Fur…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…oint of time has to be considered. Subsequent improvements are not allowed 3.1.1 In support of the arguments, the Ld. counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Atul Jain and Smt. Vinita Jain, (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi). 2. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Private Limited, (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 3. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi). 4. Decision of the ITAT, Delhi bench –B, in the case of ACIT Vs. Sh.Devesh Kumar in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 for AY 2004-05,…

Sohanlal Gupta, Rourkela vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rourkela

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

ITA 23/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Damodar Pati, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…filed before the Tribunal. 4. We have examined the additional evidences placed before the Tribunal and certainly legal in nature and the same has to be admitted in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (299 ITR 383)(SC). Further, both the parties have demonstrated the importance of documents filed as additional evidence before going into the merits of the case. We observe that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not considered the additional evidences with supporting documents, which have valuable impact on decision of the case. Therefore, in the i…

M/S. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equip. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed.” (ii). In the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as under:- “Held, dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash along with some premium for taking a cheque for that amount. The information did not indicate the source of the capital gains which in this case were shares. There was no informati…

M/S. Maverick Electronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 Maveric Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward No.6(3) C/O M/S D Ostwal & Associates, Fca New Delhi 303-304, Dhaka Chambers 2068/38, Naiwala Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005 Pan: Aaach 9596 B

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, C.A. and Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 151(1)

…4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed.” 3.4. In the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows. “Held, dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash along with some premium for taking a cheque for that amount. The information did not indicate the source of the capital gains which in this case were shares. There was no information w…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. O.J. Securities (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s C

ITA 3464/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2001-02 Ito, Ward 13(4) Vs. Oj Securities P Ltd. R.No.219, Cr Bldg. 1091 Js Place, 320 Delhi Gate Bazar New Delhi Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Pan: Aaaco 0994 L Cross Objection 292/Del/09 (In Ita No. 3464/Del/2009) A.Y. 2001-02 M/S Oj Securities P Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 13(4) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sri Somil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed.” 6(b). In the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows. “Held, dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash along with some premium for taking a cheque for that amount. The information did not indicate the source of the capital gains which in this case were shares. There was no information…

R.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Punjab vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ithout application of mind even without seeing the alleged reasons as the address was of SANGRUR PUNJAB. Hence, cannot be held as per law Nothing was observed by Add I CIT that how an assessee of Punjab can be issued a notice by ITO (Atul Jain and Vinita Jain 299 ITR 383 of 2007 DHC) United Electricals compnay (P) LTD Vs CIT (2002 258 ITR 317 del) 8. AO's Order dated 07.12.20011 :PARA 2 of page 3 of the order of AO CIT Vs Chetan Gupta (JTA No 72 of 2014 datedl5.09.2015) CIT Vs Atlanta Capital (P) Ltd (ITA No 665 & 666 2015 DHC).” (C-1). At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made det…

Knight Frank (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1165/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2002-03

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golavala & Amey WagleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…e F AA did not decide the issue of jurisdiction, that books of accounts of the assessee were audited, that no share application money was received by it during the year under consideration. He relied upon the cases of Hindustan Lever Ltd.(268ITR332),Atul Jain(299 ITR 383) and G and G Pharma India Ltd.(384 ITR 147). The Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the bench. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. Before proceeding further we would like to reproduce the regions bracketed by the AO to reopen the assessment and same reads as under:- “In this…