CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd.

357 ITR 330High Court2013#955 most cited

What is CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment initiated under Section 147 is invalid if the Assessing Officer acts mechanically or on borrowed satisfaction without independently applying their mind to the information received and without tangible material to form a belief that income has escaped assessment.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. · Insecticides India Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 151 · independent application of mind · borrowed satisfaction · mechanical recording of reasons · tangible material · reassessment invalid

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 403

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 151Section 133(6)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituretrue and full disclosuresection 148(2)section 147ofsection 92basanction under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentnon application of mindsection 151(1)bogus share capitalfresh tangible materiallive link

Judgments citing CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. A J CAST ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, HOWRAH

ITA 1685/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries, which allegedly resulted in escapement of income and thus the reopening is, therefore, bad in law, invalid, and liable to be quashed, being squarely covered by the decision in CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 330 (Delhi)]. 4. Since, the assessee has raised the issue under Rule 27 on the ground not decided by the First Appellate Authority, therefore, we shall first adjudicate the issue raised under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 5. The facts in the brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, 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

…8 High Court in the case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del). Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Insecticides (India) Ltd., reported in [2013] 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi)/[2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that when the reopening of an assessment is based on vague or insufficient information, the notice for reopening must be struck down. The court emphasized that the reasons for reopening should be clear, specific, and supported by adequate material. Reopening based on vague information is not permis…

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

…ssessee. [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 transactions undertaken by the assessee. DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. Further, the reasons recorde…

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

…ssessee. [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 transactions undertaken by the assessee. DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. Further, the reasons recorde…

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

…ssessee. [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 transactions undertaken by the assessee. DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. Further, the reasons recorde…

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

…ssessee. [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 transactions undertaken by the assessee. DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. Further, the reasons recorde…

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

…ssessee. [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 transactions undertaken by the assessee. DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. Further, the reasons recorde…

1.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ANUSHREYA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCA3658B Assessee by : Shri N.S. Saini, AR Revenue by : Shri Susanta Saha, DR Date of hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against…

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)

…ITA No.689/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA 'C' BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.689/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Navnirman Infracon Pvt Itd., 1A, Vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata 1st floor, 121, Kalighat Road, Kolkata PAN/GIR No. AACCN 8248 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Id. Commi…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…viso would prevent the authorities from reopening the\nassessment after 4 years from the close of the assessment year, unless the income had escaped\nassessment on account of the failure of the assessee.\n4.\nOther cases:-\na) Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi)\nb) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi)\nc) RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)\n1.3.\nThe notice was issue solely based on information received from DDIT and the Id.\nAO has not applied his mind. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are\nerroneous and bad in law. The A.O. must have vali…

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012
Section 10(38)

…consideration\nmust have specific reference so that check on ultra vires exercise of\npowers can be effectively exercised through judicial review.\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, IV v. Insecticides (India) Ltd [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi)\nupheld the order of the\nITAT Delhi Bench in ITA Nos.2332-2333/Del/2010, holding as\nfollows:\n17. We may point out at this juncture itself that the Tribunal did not\ngo into the question of merits. It only examined the question of the\nvalidity of the proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act. The\nTribunal, in essence, held that th…

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

…s argument, the ld. counsel has relied on the decision of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del), PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. reported in (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons u/s 148 for reopening of the assessment observing that the assessee has advanced money to M/s Sta…

ITO, WARD-18(), NEW DELHI vs. NIVIA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…invested in unquoted shares of other companies" Subsequently, the AO made additions to the reasons recorded and same is reproduced in para 7.3(c) of this order. b) It is has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 330 that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are to be considered for sustaining or setting aside a notice u/s 148. Reasons are required to be read as recorded by the AO. No substitution in the reasons recorded is permissible. In view of the same the reasons recorded by the AO as outlined in Para 7.4 (a) above…

AVI AGGARWAL, H.NO. 171-R, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, DELHI, JAO ITO WARD6(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 971/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Avi Aggarwal, बनाम The ITO H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ward -6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab-141002 Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AMJPA7843C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Dat…

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

…17 CTR 222 (Rajasthan)[28-03-2007] I.T.A. No.: 1428/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011 -12 Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. ix) Commissioner of Income-tax, IV vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 403 (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…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…2.09.2015 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court); • Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [2011] 338 ITR 51, • Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, reported in 329 ITR 110 (Delhi), • CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) • Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del) PROPOSITION 4 ON MERITS: FAILURE TO PROVIDE CROSS EXAMINATION OF SH. ASHISH BEGWANI, THOUGH STATEMENT RELIED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKES IT FATAL TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS • 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 20 DCIT v. Manish U…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BELLFLOWER FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and re-opening of assessment is quashed by allowing the issue raised under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules

ITA 2020/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM] I.T.A. No. 2020/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata Vs. Bellflower Finance Private Limited 12A, 1st floor, R. No. 102, Shyamakunj Annapurna Apartment, 12A, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700071. (PAN: AADCS5448L) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2025 For the Assessee Abhishek Bansal, AR For the Revenue Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld…

SUDHA SURANA,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Robindro Singh, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITO Ward-61(3) Bamboo villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. ADEPB5526F Assessee by : Dr. Kapil Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Robindro Singh, DR Date of hearing: 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centr…

M/S. KEYNESIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2264/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle-7(1) M/S Keynesian Financial Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Services Ltd. 205, Rabindra Sarani, 3 Rd Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Room No.103, Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck3459M Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM DCIT, Circle-7(1) M/s Keynesian Financial Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Services Ltd. 205, Rabindra Sarani, 3 rd Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Room No.103, Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCK3459M Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Paul, DR Date of hearing: 23.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal…

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

…ay also gainfully refer to the decision of had escaped assessment. We may also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Insecticides (India) CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd (357 ITR 330) which which upheld the order of the ITAT Delhi Benc upheld the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench by holding as under: - "7. We may point out at this juncture itself that the Tribunal did not go "7. We may point out at this juncture itself that the Tribunal did not go "7. We may point out at this juncture itself that the Tribunal did not go into the…

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (357 ITR 330) — Cited in 112 Judgments | BharatTax