CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

380 ITR 612High Court2016#80 most cited

What is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. authority for?

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

689

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. · Section 153A · Section 153C · incriminating material · reopening completed assessments · correlation between discovered material and assessment · power to assess · validity of search assessments · block assessment · satisfaction note

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 3912015 SCC OnLine DEL 13085128 DTR 57

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 149
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153atosection 153b(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 153(c)(1)section 153c(1)section 153c proceedingssection 153(c)section 153b(1)section 113section 158bdblock periodsatisfaction note

Judgments citing CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Apple Sponge & Power Ltd., Noida

In the result, ITA.Nos.3634, 3635, 3636, 3637 &

ITA 3633/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.3633, 3634, 3635, 3636, 3637 & 3638/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 The DCIT, Central Circle-2, M/s. Apple Sponge & 2nd Floor, ARTO Complex, Power Ltd., B-16, [vs. Sector-33, Noida. U.P. Sector-2, Noida 201301. PIN 201 301. PAN AAFCA1965L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Del./2022 Arising out of ITA.Nos.3633, 3634, 3635, 3636, 3637 & 3638/Del./2019 Assessment Year…

Yennarkay R.Chiranjeevirathinam, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, CC 2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 337/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

…akasi that was recorded on 10.11.2016 and which clearly administers that the assessment is to be completed u/s.153C of the Act. As pointed out by ld.counsel for the assessee, the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612, wherein the provisions of section 153C of the Act is interpreted that in the case of search person, the AO of the searched person assumes possession of the seized documents / assets on search of the assessee and the seized asset / documents, in case belonging to a person other than a documents does not belong to the searched person. The Hon’ble…

Yennarkay R Chiranjeevirathnam, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 219/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

…akasi that was recorded on 10.11.2016 and which clearly administers that the assessment is to be completed u/s.153C of the Act. As pointed out by ld.counsel for the assessee, the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612, wherein the provisions of section 153C of the Act is interpreted that in the case of search person, the AO of the searched person assumes possession of the seized documents / assets on search of the assessee and the seized asset / documents, in case belonging to a person other than a documents does not belong to the searched person. The Hon’ble…

Yennarkay R Chiranjeevirathnam, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 218/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

…akasi that was recorded on 10.11.2016 and which clearly administers that the assessment is to be completed u/s.153C of the Act. As pointed out by ld.counsel for the assessee, the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612, wherein the provisions of section 153C of the Act is interpreted that in the case of search person, the AO of the searched person assumes possession of the seized documents / assets on search of the assessee and the seized asset / documents, in case belonging to a person other than a documents does not belong to the searched person. The Hon’ble…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

ITA 5473/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…mmissioner of C.O. Nos. 26 to 28/Del/2016 Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for init…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

ITA 5472/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…mmissioner of C.O. Nos. 26 to 28/Del/2016 Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for init…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

ITA 5471/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…mmissioner of C.O. Nos. 26 to 28/Del/2016 Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for init…

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Agc Reality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Ground No

ITA 45/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 43/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 44/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 45/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs AGC Reality Pvt. Ltd., 403, 4th Floor, Sachdeva Corporate Central Circle-27, New Delhi-110055 Tower, 17, DDA Community Centre, Karkardooma, New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCA9157E CO No. 106/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 CO No. 107/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 CO No. 108/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 AGC…

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Agc Reality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Ground No

ITA 44/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 43/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 44/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 45/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs AGC Reality Pvt. Ltd., 403, 4th Floor, Sachdeva Corporate Central Circle-27, New Delhi-110055 Tower, 17, DDA Community Centre, Karkardooma, New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCA9157E CO No. 106/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 CO No. 107/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 CO No. 108/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 AGC…

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Agc Reality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Ground No

ITA 43/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 43/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 44/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 45/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs AGC Reality Pvt. Ltd., 403, 4th Floor, Sachdeva Corporate Central Circle-27, New Delhi-110055 Tower, 17, DDA Community Centre, Karkardooma, New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCA9157E CO No. 106/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 CO No. 107/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 CO No. 108/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 AGC…

DCIT, CC- 27, New Delhi vs. Apoorva Extrusion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 8495/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue here is fully covered by the following case laws. i) CIT vs. Singhad Technical Educational Society, 397 ITR 344 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) iii) CIT vs. R.R.J. Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) 7. The ld. counsel further referred to that none of the items referred by the Assessing Officer in its assessment order in any case warrant the change of head ‘business income to income from other sources’. Hence, the ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessment so framed is not sustainable in law. 8. Upon careful considerati…

DCIT, CC- 27, New Delhi vs. Apoorva Extrusion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 8494/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue here is fully covered by the following case laws. i) CIT vs. Singhad Technical Educational Society, 397 ITR 344 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) iii) CIT vs. R.R.J. Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) 7. The ld. counsel further referred to that none of the items referred by the Assessing Officer in its assessment order in any case warrant the change of head ‘business income to income from other sources’. Hence, the ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessment so framed is not sustainable in law. 8. Upon careful considerati…

DCIT, Central Circnel, Ghaziabad vs. Sutaniti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8952/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…rred in annulling the 4 ITA.No.8952/Del./2019 M/s. Sutaniti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. assessment order framed under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 by following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities reported in [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Del.). He further submitted that the ratio of the decision in the case of RRJ Securities (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the A.O. of the searched person and the assessee are the same and, therefore, the period of six assessment years should be considered from the date of search. 5. The Learne…

ACIT Cent. Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2294/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Co No. 58/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2293/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Co No. 59/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2294/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr/Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6th floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAATD 8919 M Appellant Respondent CO No. 58/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & CO No. 59/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2294/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasa…

ACIT CC 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2293/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Co No. 58/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2293/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Co No. 59/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2294/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr/Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6th floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAATD 8919 M Appellant Respondent CO No. 58/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & CO No. 59/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2294/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasa…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…see had inflated its expenses by overbilling. The assessing officer has only relied on the retracted statement and there was no independent material /evidences to substantiate the same. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612) wherein it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material the concluded assessment could not be interfered u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Lata Jain (ITA 274 & 276 of 2016) considering the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 held that Section 153A assessment cannot…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…see had inflated its expenses by overbilling. The assessing officer has only relied on the retracted statement and there was no independent material /evidences to substantiate the same. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612) wherein it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material the concluded assessment could not be interfered u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Lata Jain (ITA 274 & 276 of 2016) considering the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 held that Section 153A assessment cannot…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…see had inflated its expenses by overbilling. The assessing officer has only relied on the retracted statement and there was no independent material /evidences to substantiate the same. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612) wherein it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material the concluded assessment could not be interfered u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Lata Jain (ITA 274 & 276 of 2016) considering the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 held that Section 153A assessment cannot…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…see had inflated its expenses by overbilling. The assessing officer has only relied on the retracted statement and there was no independent material /evidences to substantiate the same. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612) wherein it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material the concluded assessment could not be interfered u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Lata Jain (ITA 274 & 276 of 2016) considering the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 held that Section 153A assessment cannot…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…see had inflated its expenses by overbilling. The assessing officer has only relied on the retracted statement and there was no independent material /evidences to substantiate the same. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612) wherein it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material the concluded assessment could not be interfered u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Delhi Court in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Lata Jain (ITA 274 & 276 of 2016) considering the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 held that Section 153A assessment cannot…