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.

Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 7921/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…

Deepak Jain, C-Scheme vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…Delhi High Court has held that Information received from the Investigation Wing cannot per se be considered to be a tangible material for warranting reopening:- 1.11.i SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) 1.11.ii Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 1.11.iii Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) 1.12. Thus, what was required and expected, as per the settled principles of reopening, was corroboration, checking and cross checking of the information, received from the Investigation Wing, with independent evidences and establishing a clear trail suggesting, even if prima…

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…cannot be considered as a tangible material, warranting reopening, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements- Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.6.1. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) 1.6.2. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 1.6.3. Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) 1.6.4. RMG Polyvinyl (I)B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) 1.6.5. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) 1.7. In the case of Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Gujarat), the High Court, at Para 7-8, held that even the assessment which is complet…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bom…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bom…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bom…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bom…

The ACIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S Suyash Exim P Ltd, Indore

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

ITA 356/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147

…n the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pr. Commissioner of Income tax -13 Vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt Ltd. (Bom) (HC) (ii)Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT Circle 5(1) Kolkata ITA NO. 2307/Kol/2017 ITAT Kolkata CIT vs Insceticides (India) Ltd 357 ITR 330 (Del), CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), M/s. Controlla Electrotech (P)Ltd vs DCIT in ITA Nos.1443 & 1444/Kol/2014 (ITAT, Kolkata), DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. KBG LIFE INFRA PVT. LTD ITA NO. 951/IND/2016 DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 (2018) 33 ITJ 641 (TRIB.- INDORE). 7. On consideration of above facts in the light of the j…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No. 16705/2018), and the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Del), Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Benches decisions in case of Deepraj Hospital…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No. 16705/2018), and the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Del), Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Benches decisions in case of Deepraj Hospital…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…nce was placed on case laws:- i) PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd., 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del) ii) PCIT v. G&G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 109 (Del) iii) CIT v. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 iv) CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd., 357 ITR 330 39. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no recording of any reasons to believe for reopening for the year and in any case there was no reasons and material for the AY 2006-07 in the reasons so recorded. Therefore, issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is without any reasons and therefore bad in law and consequent…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…nce was placed on case laws:- i) PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd., 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del) ii) PCIT v. G&G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 109 (Del) iii) CIT v. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 iv) CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd., 357 ITR 330 39. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no recording of any reasons to believe for reopening for the year and in any case there was no reasons and material for the AY 2006-07 in the reasons so recorded. Therefore, issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is without any reasons and therefore bad in law and consequent…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…er Kumar Jain Group of cases during the F.Y. 2006-07. The quantum of entries i.e. 1.25 Crores has been specifically mentioned and thus to this extent the appellant's reliance on a judgment of Delhi K High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) can be clearly distinguished from the case of the instant case. In fact in the case of ITO vs. Purshottam Dass Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that letter from Deputy Director (Investigation) constitutes information and reasons to believe that income have escaped assessment. In fact herein the Hon…

Pv Corporate Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8027/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Pv Corporate Advisory Services Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/O Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, Chi Iv, Noida. Pan: Aadcp7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ture Ltd. Vs. ACIT of Hon’ble Delhi High Court 2. Meenakshi Overseas Vs. PCIT 82 taxmann.com 300 3. Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 338 ITR 51 4. CIT Vs. Insecticides India Ltd. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 357 ITR 330 5. PCIT Vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court (2017) 81 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi) 6. Neelkanth Plywood Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.6702/Del/2018) 7. ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2011) 197 Taxman 202 (SC) 8. Charanjiv Lal Aggarwal vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 845 (Amritsar Tribunal) 9. CIT vs. Indo Arab Air Services (2015) 64 taxmann…

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s to say that the reasons recorded by the AO were with reference to those amounts mentioned in the assessment order. The principles laid down is covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 330 and this Tribunal in the case of Shanker Tradex (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2200/D/2019 dated 10.11.2020. 24.1 In view of these facts and circumstances, since the reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revise…

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s to say that the reasons recorded by the AO were with reference to those amounts mentioned in the assessment order. The principles laid down is covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 330 and this Tribunal in the case of Shanker Tradex (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2200/D/2019 dated 10.11.2020. 24.1 In view of these facts and circumstances, since the reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revise…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s to say that the reasons recorded by the AO were with reference to those amounts mentioned in the assessment order. The principles laid down is covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 330 and this Tribunal in the case of Shanker Tradex (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2200/D/2019 dated 10.11.2020. 24.1 In view of these facts and circumstances, since the reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revise…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s to say that the reasons recorded by the AO were with reference to those amounts mentioned in the assessment order. The principles laid down is covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 330 and this Tribunal in the case of Shanker Tradex (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2200/D/2019 dated 10.11.2020. 24.1 In view of these facts and circumstances, since the reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revise…

Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3304/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…mount of escapement; - The AO has recorded reasons based on tax evasion petition received from investigation wing without applying his mind. To buttress these submissions reliance has been placed on the following decision: - CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 4 ITA NO.3304/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2008-09) 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that without prejudice to the legal grounds raised, the assessee has also challenged addition on merits. Narrating the facts of the case the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in this…

Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…mount of escapement; - The AO has recorded reasons based on tax evasion petition received from investigation wing without applying his mind. To buttress these submissions reliance has been placed on the following decision: - CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 4 ITA NO.3304/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2008-09) 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that without prejudice to the legal grounds raised, the assessee has also challenged addition on merits. Narrating the facts of the case the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in this…