How many judgments cite CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.?

243 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (325 ITR 285), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 250, Section 151.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285High Court2010#358 most cited

What is CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

243

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. · SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. · section 147 · section 148 · section 151 · reopening of assessment · borrowed satisfaction · independent application of mind · mere change of opinion · documents already on record · tangible material

Also reported as

149 Taxmann.com 22341 DTR 98

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 250 Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 133(6)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)borrowed satisfaction first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment kelvinator tangible material mere change of opinion live link reason to believe reopening of assessment escapement of income income escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. R.L. Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 5214/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.893/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2005-2006 M/s. RL Travels Pvt. Ltd., 118, Ansal Bhawan, The DCIT, Central Circle-12 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, vs New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 001. PAN AAACR2852C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.5214/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2005-2006 M/s. RL Travels Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Central Circle-7 118, Ansal Bhawan, Room No.330, ARA vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Centre, Jhandewalan Delhi - 110 001. Extn, New Delhi. PAN AAACR2852C (Appellant) (Respon…

Rl Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 893/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

…Assessing Officer and without tangible material is invalid :- 6 PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5. (ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677. (iii) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 338 ITR 51. (iv) CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285. (v) India Terminal Connector Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT, 52 SOT 13. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in a mechanical manner has given approval for issue of notice u/s 151(2) and there is no independent application of mind. Therefore, such reassessment is invalid. For the above propositi…

Rajender Parsad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7060/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Rajender Parsad Vs. The I.T.O Prop. M/S. Priya Enterprises Ward 63(3) 5897/2, Basti Harphool Singh, New Delhi Sadar Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan : Anlpp 8555 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…he facts indicated above do not show that SS Ltd is a non existing and a 14 fictitious entity/person. For the reasons stated above, writ of the certiorari is issued quashing the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act.” 13. In the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stockbroking Co. 325 ITR 285, it has been held as under” “The first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). The second sentence is a direction given by the very same Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to issue a notice under Section 148 and the third…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…e message from the Investigation Wing without verification and without application of mind being in the nature of a borrowed satisfaction has been held to be invalid in law. This is stated on the authority of Delhi High Court in SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285. Similar observations of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (2015) 281 CTR 75, Pr. CIT vs. G & Pharma India ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 21 Ltd. ITA No. 545/2015 of Delhi, CIT vs. Smt. Sulochana (2005) 272 ITR 529 (Mad) and CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ld. (2009) 313 ITR…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur reported in 311 ITR 38, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 285, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 10 329 ITR 110, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. G & Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 and Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677. He also referred to the decisio…

Shri Raj Kumar Goel, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1028/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Goel -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Advpg 0006 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…le person can form belief regarding escapement of income. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Insceticides (India) Ltd 357 ITR 330 and CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi). In both the aforesaid decisions the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act the Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal quashing the proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT, Kolkata 'C' Bench in the case of M/s. Controlla Electrotech (P)Ltd vs DCIT in ITA Nos.1443 &…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. M D Garments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cross-Objector 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata....................................................................Respondent 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Sheth, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…8 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/s. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Insceticides (India) Ltd 357 ITR 330 and CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi). In both the aforesaid decisions the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act the Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal quashing the proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT, Kolkata 'C' Bench in the case of M/s. Controlla Electrotech (P) Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1443…

Prakash B. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1765/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)

Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Prakash B. Thakur, The Income Tax Officer-19(2)(5), C/o M/s Bhavik Metal Industries, Matru Mandir, II Floor, Room No. 3, Krishna Building, Tardeo Road, Nana Chowk, Pathe Bapurao Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 PAN: ACTPT0016A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.P. Mehta (AR) Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR) Date of Hearing: 06/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 19/06/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appea…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…y of such applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 195 Taxman 262 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (ITA No. 545/D/2015) (Delhi High Court), ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) – Judgment dated 22.10.2014 and Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (S) TMI 1428 held that the reopening of the assessment without the AO independently undertaking the exercise of examination of facts is bad under la…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…the belief and must too in the consequence of information. The reliance was made on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India [256 ITR 1] and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285]. The ld. AR of the assessee also submits that no proper opportunity was given by AO. No opportunity of cross-examination was given despite making request before the AO. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the AO was having sufficient information for th…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Alook Finetrade P Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…rtment. 6. Further, the ld AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 0110 (Del) and the another decision in the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del). Regarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond’s Woolen Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), it was submitted by the ld AR that the said decision has laid down the principle that sufficiency or correctness of the matter is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issuance of notice U/s 148 of the Act. However, in the present c…

Damodar Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…valid reason for initiating action u/s 147/148. Therefore, the AO has not applied his mind to this information to independently arrive at a belief that on the basis of material before him income had escaped assessment. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.) (HC) The assessee’s return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the DDIT (Inv.) informed the AO of the assessee that during the course of investigation, one SG, proprietor of M/s RK had stated on oath that the transactions through certain bank account were only paper transactions in which the party was intending to take bills paid in ca…

Merta Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S. Smit Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6922/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2005-06 Smit Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward- 9(1), E-78, 1St Floor, Lic Colony, New Delhi. Vs. Pashim Vihar, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ed a permanent account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. In these circumstances, we feel the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 9 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have stated that Swetu Stone Pvt. Ltd. is unidenti…

Madan Lal Chadhary, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…in GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 259 ITR 19(SC) and that the additions were made without fully considering the material produced by assessee before the AO. Reliance is further placed on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (ii). ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437 (iii). Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order and submitted that since the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of the transactions coupled with the statements of the donor admitting…

M/S. Metro Decorative Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…f such applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 195 Taxman 262 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. G&G 11 Pharma India Ltd. (ITA No. 545/D/2015) (Delhi High Court), ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) – Judgment dated 22.10.2014 and Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (S) TMI 1428 held that the reopening of the assessment without the AO independently undertaking the exercise of examination of facts is bad…

Smt. Taruna Verma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishismt Taruna Verma, Vs. Ito, A-340, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Ward-19(3), Pan:Akfpv1950P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ises, conjectures or occasioned by change in opinion but must be based on some tangible and credible material on the basis of which a reasonable belief could be formed that income of an assessee has escaped assessment c) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (DHC) "Held that, in the present case, the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer was mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.). The second sentence was a direction given by the very same Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.) to issue a notice under section 148 and the third sentence…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…8 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. reported in [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) CIT vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] (vi) 206 Taxman 254 (DELHI) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (vii) 299 ITR 383 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del) 2. Proceedings under section 147 of the Act cannot be initiated on the basis of the stale information (Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (W.P.(C) 1608/2013 & CM Appl. 3024/2013 dated 14.02.2014). 3. Unless there is fresh material, as distinguished from mere allegation in the form of inf…

Shri Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, New Delhi vs. ITO, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 297/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sandeep Sapra, Advocate, C- Ward-1(2), 763, New Friends Colony, Haldwani New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpd1990R Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…. 11 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti 10. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 692/2016 order dated 26.05.2017 (Del.) " Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) " Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 375 ITR 460 (Del.) " Rustagi Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 382 ITR 443 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs ACIT 82 ITR 147 (SC) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the assessee was meager as compared to the expenses…