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 366,470 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)
Read the full judgment

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.

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

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Delightful Estate Developers LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Delightful Estate Developers Llp Acit, Cc 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 Th Floor, Acit, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C, Kiran Bhavan Poorva, 5Th Floor, 110, Vs. Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, Shankar Roy Road Kolkata West Bengal G.P.O. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aamfd0344A Co No.04/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Delightful Estate Developers Llp Acit, Cc 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 Th Floor, Acit, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C, Kiran Bhavan Poorva, 5 Th Floor, 110, Vs. Shankar Roy Road Kolkata Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal G.P.O. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 37Section 47Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM M/s Delightful Estate Developers LLP ACIT, CC 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 th Floor, ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C, Kiran Bhavan Poorva, 5th Floor, 110, Vs. Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, Shankar Roy Road Kolkata West Bengal G.P.O. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAMFD0344A CO No.04/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s Delightful Estate Developers LLP ACIT, CC 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 th Floor, ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C,…

Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Acit(Osd), Ward-1(2), Omaxe Square, Plot No.14, 3Rd Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Floor, Jasola District Centre, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn8914D Assessee By : Shri Amit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(2), Omaxe Square, Plot No.14, 3rd Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Floor, Jasola District Centre, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACN8914D Assessee by : Shri Amit Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, DR Date of hearing: 20.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 15.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National…

Sangeeta Devi Anchalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Sangeeta Devi Anchalia 2, Gariahat Road (South) 31-C, Jhowtalla Road, Park Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, Cicus, Kolkata-700017, Vs. Kolkata-700068, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpa0199C Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…any independent application of mind and in fact a case of borrowed satisfaction. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. SFILl Stock Broking Ltd.(2010) 325 ITR 285 and M/S Shreyans Jain, Huf Vs. ITO 357 ITR 330. Accordingly, taking into account the ratio laid down in the above decisions and the facts of the instant case at hand, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and also the consequent order passed are quashed. 06. In the result, the appe…

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

…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…

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

…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…

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Shanaj Vs The ITO W/o Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. FPMPS 3570 D Assessee By Shri Aman Saxena Advocate Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR Revenue By Date of hearing 05/10/2024 Date of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: DR S. SEETHALAKSHMI , JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-08-2024, National Faceless App…

Sse Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2287/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…that assessee’s taxable income of Rs.52.60 lakhs, which had already been assessed in section 143(3) assessment dated 22.11.2017, liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. This being the clinching case, I hereby quote CIT v. Insecticides India Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) that such a reopening initiated by the learned Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly quashed. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 29.11.2024. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP*…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…rder, which means Assessing officer was not sure about the amount of income escaped as he did not apply his mind before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the reason recorded cannot be rectified so order passed is invalid. CIT VS INSECITICIDES (INDIA)LTD 357 ITR 330 - it was also 2. held in this case that when the basis of concealment of income is not correct the re assessment is invalid, in our case also the basis for concealment of income was assessment year 2015-16 where addition made was reduced by CIT(A) order which was passed before the date of reason recorded and this fact was brought to the notice of…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…rder, which means Assessing officer was not sure about the amount of income escaped as he did not apply his mind before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the reason recorded cannot be rectified so order passed is invalid. CIT VS INSECITICIDES (INDIA)LTD 357 ITR 330 - it was also 2. held in this case that when the basis of concealment of income is not correct the re assessment is invalid, in our case also the basis for concealment of income was assessment year 2015-16 where addition made was reduced by CIT(A) order which was passed before the date of reason recorded and this fact was brought to the notice of…

Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Ltd. (PAN: AABCR 2687 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 08.08.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 09.10.2024 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से For…

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

…u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contentions: - • PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Del)]; • CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [357 ITR 330 (Del)]; • Signature Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)]; • Pr. CIT Vs. G.G. Pharma (India) Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Del)]; • DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing (P) Ltd. ITA No.660/Kol/2011. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the approval accorded by the Ld. Pr. CIT is without application of mind, mechanical and the approval was…

Santosh Khunteta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3139/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56

…(ii) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, 82 ITR 147 (SC). iii) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax v.G&G Pharma (2015) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs Insecticides India Ltd 357 ITR 330, Delhi High Court. vii) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285, Delhi High Court; (viii)Sarthak Securities Co. (P).Ltd vs ITO, 329 ITR 110, (Delhi HC); (ix) PCIT vs RMG Poly Vinyl (1) Ltd Delhi High Court; (x) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 421 (Del). 7 Santosh Khunteta Vs. ITO 5. Per contra, the Ld.…

M/S. Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1069/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1069/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…he AO the issue was not agitated and the objection was not filed by the assessee during the time of assessment proceedings. The ld. A/R had relied on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) where if Page 4 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 1069/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd. the re-opening of the assessment on the vague allegation that on basis of the report of Director of Income-tax (Inv.), the assessee was involved in accommodation entries without specifying details thereof and without disclosing the said…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND 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 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Facele…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Hartron Case Communication Ltd. The DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi 108, Dhaka Chambers, 2069/38 Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vs. 110005 PAN AABCH 5086 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Anil Jain, CA For Revenue : Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 01.12.2017…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 8309 & 8310/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Shark Packaging (India) P. Ltd., ITO, Ward 23(1), New Delhi 24/1A, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. 110044 PAN AABCS 8728 F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mayank Patawari, Adv. Shri Shrey Sinha, Adv. Shri Anmol Jagga, Adv. For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 ORDER P…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 8309 & 8310/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Shark Packaging (India) P. Ltd., ITO, Ward 23(1), New Delhi 24/1A, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. 110044 PAN AABCS 8728 F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mayank Patawari, Adv. Shri Shrey Sinha, Adv. Shri Anmol Jagga, Adv. For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 ORDER P…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 8309 & 8310/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Shark Packaging (India) P. Ltd., ITO, Ward 23(1), New Delhi 24/1A, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. 110044 PAN AABCS 8728 F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mayank Patawari, Adv. Shri Shrey Sinha, Adv. Shri Anmol Jagga, Adv. For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 ORDER P…

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 9133/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…scaped assessment and such reference to the material is sorely missing. Similar judgements have been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del); CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del) Orient Craft Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) and other plethora of other judgments. 29. We thus find overwhelming potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded and approval granted thereon under Section 151 do not meet the requirement of law at all and thus the issuance of notice under Section 148 based on cryptic and non…

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