CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company

321 ITR 526High Court2010#3146 most cited

What is CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company authority for?

An assessment is invalid if the Assessing Officer (AO) seeks only to ascertain the source of funds without forming a belief, based on tangible material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A mere expression of doubt or a need for deeper scrutiny without any supporting evidence does not justify invoking reassessment powers.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Batra Bhatta Company · 321 ITR 526 · section 148 · escaped assessment · tangible material · belief · income escaping assessment · reassessment · AO belief · material facts

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 112(1)Section 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 55valuation of sharesgoing concernsection 80hsection 148(2)full value of considerationtransfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ry Dealership Lid: 348 ITR 299 (SC).  Usha International vs CIT: 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)  Maruti Suzuki India Lad vs DCTT: 356 ITR 209 (Del)  Satnam Overseas Limited vs ACTT: 129 ITR 237 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  CIT vs Batra Bhatta Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del)  Deepak Kumar vs PCIT: 450 ITR 301 (Del)  Jal Hotels Co Ltd. vs ADIT 184 Taxman 1 (Del)  CIT vs Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) 6.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the reopening was initiated based on certain transactions between third parties which was subject matter of investigation by the Investigation wing. No evi…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. CIT, BSES Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. CIT, BSES Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Yamuna Power Dy. CIT, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Rajdhani Pow…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. CIT, BSES Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. CIT, BSES Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Yamuna Power Dy. CIT, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 PAN-AAGCS3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) BSES Rajdhani Pow…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…ount to abuse of power. To similar effect are the following decisions, as relied by the ld, Sr, Counsel: PCIT v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited: ITA No.689 of 2016 (Del.) PCIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd.: 284 CTR 68 (Del.) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Co 321 ITR 526 (Del) - SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court and is reported in 320 ITR (St.) 24. CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd: 354 ITR 536 (Del.) Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: 329 ITR 110 (Del.) Indivest Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT: 250 CTR 15 (Bom) Nitin P. Shah vs. DCIT 146 Taxman 536 (Guj.). CIT vs. Manohar Lal Gupta 213 CTR 93 (Raj.) 28.…

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…Income-Tax Officer And Others reported in [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) (iv) Commissioner of Income-tax -Vs- Spirit Global Construction (P) Ltd reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 641 (Delhi). (v) Commissioner of Income-tax -Vs- Batra Bhatta Company reported in [2010] 321 ITR 526 (Del)- (vi) Chhugamri Rajpal -Vs- S.P.Chaliha And Others reported in (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC). (vii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs. Union of India And Others reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom). (viii) Aroni Commercials Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax And Another reported in [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bom). (ix) Asian Paints Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commi…

TULSHI DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO,WD-11(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…find out the source of funds and same does not constitute any reason for belief that income has escaped assessment so as to invoke section 148 of the Act and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. (f) In the case of CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue that Ld. CIT(A) as well as 7 Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2012-13 Tribunal had given a concurrent finding that there was no material before the AO on the basis of which the AO would have had a belief that agricultural land sold by the assessee was a capita…

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…nd Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification and examination of purchases is bad in law and so is the consequent assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. pr…

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…nd Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification and examination of purchases is bad in law and so is the consequent assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. pr…

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI KACHCHADIA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, GIDC, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. PAN No. ACPPK 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee Assessee represented by Shri Rajesh Upadhayay, A.R. Department represented by Shri S.M. Keshkamat, CIT-DR Date of Institution of Appeal 24/08/2023 Date of hearing 25/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 29/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAW…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded and therefore the reopening is bad in law. It is needless to mention that the reason are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO and no substitution or deletion or addition is permissible. The Ld. A.R. submitted…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded and therefore the reopening is bad in law. It is needless to mention that the reason are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO and no substitution or deletion or addition is permissible. The Ld. A.R. submitted…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…1 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Rakesh Vaid, Vs Income-tax Officer, H.No. 11-D, pocket-B, Ward-62(2), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi-110091 PAN- AACPV5536G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal Adv. & Sh. D.K. Gandhi Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 08.04.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-t…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu. CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir of Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laks…

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEY TECH, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Bom) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the judgments mentioned supra, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification of facts/information received from DIT(Inv.), Mumbai, is bad in law and so is the consequent assessment framed u/s 14…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANHATTAN IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R
Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…ndia) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) (Bombay HC) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi HC) 8. Swatik Safe Deposit & Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (265 Taxman 164) (Bombay HC) 7 M/s. Manhattan Impex Pvt. Ltd. 9. NuPower Renewable Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT WPNo.3618 of 2018 dated 07.03.2019 (Bombay HC) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jur…

IM.MEDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S.SARASWATHI MEDIA PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…gh Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) 6. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) 7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification of facts/information received from DIT(Inl.), New Delhi is bad in law and so is the consequent assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Accordin…

DIVYA ,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1, HISAR

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

ITA 6097/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble, [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Divya, Ito, D/O-Shri Kailash Chand, 151, Kala Ward-1, Mandir Saree, Palika Bazar, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Haryana

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P). Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BatraBhatta & Co. 321 ITR 526 (Del.) and Ashok Kumar Sen vs. ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. 236 ITR 34 (SC). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materia…

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2