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 366,470 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.

M/S. R S Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1513/KOL/2025[1513]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S R.S. Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Circle 11(3), 3A, National Library Avenue, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 Chowringhee Square, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0739H Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…est a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction. Besides the case of the assessee is squarely M/s R.S. Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2016-17 covered by the decisions of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) ,GRD Commodities Ltd Vs PCIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 223(Cal), PCIT Vs Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bom) and Sarthak Securities Co Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 329ITR 110(Del). 07. We therefore respectfully following the ratio laid in the above decisions, quash the reopening of assessment along with the consequent assess…

Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 717/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…to escapement of income. The assessee argued that such reopening of assessment was bad in law, being based on borrowed satisfaction. To support this contention, reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), CIT v. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 248 CTR 33 (Delhi), Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel v. ITO (Gujarat High Court, ITA No. 12873 of 2014, dated 13.10.2015), and Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). The assessee further submitted that all transactions of…

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ecific details of any alleged bogus scrip or the manner in which the assessee is alleged to have derived fictitious loss renders the formation of belief mechanical and unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) has held that reopening of assessment based merely on information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is invalid. ITA No223/Ahd/2025. Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel Asst. Year : 2016-17 6 Similarly, in Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del), the Hon’ble High C…

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

…lieve that there is escapement of income. It is submitted that the issue of notice under section 148 being based on borrowed satisfaction is unlawful, illegal and unjust. The following case laws are quoted in support. I. CIT Vs SFIL Stock broking limited 2010 41 DTR 98 (Del) ii. Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd (Delhi High Court) dated 08.10.2015 iii. Signature Hotels P limited Vs ITO 2011 60 DTR 30 (Del) iv. Sarthak securities P limited Vs ITO 2010 329 ITR 110 (Del) v. Ganga saran & sons P. Ltd. V. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Charanjiv Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015 vii. ACIT Vs Din…

Yadav Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…essment Year: 2012-13 CIT v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 38 (P&H) S P Agarwalla Alias Sukhdeo Prasad Agarwala v. ITO [1983] 140 ITR 1010 (Cal) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi HC ) CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 99CCH 0028 (Delhi HC)” 16. The Ld AR relying on the above decisions on legal grounds against the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 and also on the merits of the case arising out of the facts discussed above, he prayed for deletion of the addition. 17. The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld firs…

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…t proceedings, a fact admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order. Consequently, the reopening is not valid (Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd 338 ITR 51 (Del) & CIT vs. SFIL Stockbroking Co 325 ITR 285 (Del) followed) c. 2022 (8) TMI 576 - ITAT CHANDIGARH Rajnish Garg Versus The Asst. Cit Tax Circle-6, Ludhiana Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - investment in trade market through broker and manipulated his income by shifting in losses / shifting in profit - HELD THAT:- As the reopening was done on the basis of information received from the Inve…

Modern Insulators Limited, Abu Road vs. ITO(Tj)O-O the Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmodern Insulators Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 Pan No.: Aabcm 0860G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthy, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…upon, more so when the assessment was already completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: " CIT us. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 CTR (Del) 69: (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 98 (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) " Principal CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd. (2017) 156 DTR (Del) 79: (2017) 396 ITR (Del) " Kavya Satija vs. DCIT (2025) 235 TTJ (Del) 217 9. Per Contra ld. DR submitted that reasons recorded do reflect application of mind. We are in agreement with the contentions of ld. AR. We have also gone through the Reasons Recorded. The Reasons Recorde…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1077/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year :2011-2012) Vs ITO Ward-6(3), Kolkata Narayan Suppliers Private Ltd 138, Canning Street, Burrabazar Kolkata-70007 PAN No. :AACCN 9623 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Avijit Ghoshal, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / ORDER Per George Math…

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…n law. Authorities on this point are the jurisdictional High Court decisions in – a. Pro CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) b. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del) c. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Braking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) C. NO ORDER PASSED AGAINST OBJECTIONS FILED On receipt of the reasons recorded dated 25.03.2011, the assessee filed detailed objections (PB 59). The said objections have never been disposed off through a speaking order before proceeding with and framing the assessment. This in violation of mandate in GKN Driveshaft (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).”…

Hasmukhbhai Raghubhai Goriya, Old Dhuva vs. Income Tax Officer, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.195/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukh Raghubhai Goriya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Morbi Village: Old Dhuva, Taluka: J.K. Chamber, National High Way-8A, Wakaner, District: Morbi- Near Ravi Residency Hotel, Lalpar, 363622 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awupg 3221 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…en directed to do so by a superior officer. Hon`ble Delhi High Court held that the AO cannot reopen the assessment merely on the basis of information received without applying his mind to the information and forming an opinion, CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd, 325 ITR 285 (Del) Therefore, the reasons of the AO for reopening assessment should be based on ITA No. 195/RJT/2025 A.Y.11-12 Hasmukhbhai R Goriya, direct and circumstantial evidence; such reasons could not be based on simply suspicion, rumor or gossip. 14. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to…

Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle 4-Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…e material for re-opening the assessment without the Assessee being informed what in the report of the investigation wing constituted tangible material for forming a belief, Mr. Goel placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Limited (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.), Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (supra), Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd.... (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del.) and Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del). Reliance was also placed on…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaica1782G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

…essary for assessment for that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and the evidence, and that this vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary re-opening of a concluded assessment"; in CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), (Pr.CIT v India Business Network Ltd.) and Pr. CIT v G&G Pharma India Ltd. (ITA No. 545/2015) Delhi High Court order dated 08.10.2015 it has been held that "mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of a…

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

…it will kindly be appreciated that in the present case, too, the assessing officer has merely 12 Jaiprakash Yadav vs. ITO recorded certain unsubstantiated allegations on the basis of some information received. 2.2. In CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from investigation wing regarding alleged accommodation entries. It has been held by jurisdictional Delhi High Court that mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…1 ACIT v. A&D Estates (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vs A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., R/o. B-4/43, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN: AAFCA 2604 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; & Sh. Saksham Agarwal, CA Department represented by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta CIT(DR) Date of hearing 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The i…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…essary for assessment for that assessment year, so as to establish the vital lin k between the reasons and the evidence, and that this vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary re-opening of a concluded assessment: in CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), (Pr.CIT v India Business Network Ltd.) and Pr. CIT v G&G Pharma India Ltd. (ITA No. 545/2015) Delhi High Court order dated 08.10.2015 it has been held that 'mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…asis of material which he had before him, the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. While taking such a view, we are fortified by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under (page 289): 'After having heard the counsel for the parties, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the respondent/assessee. We find that the Supreme Court in Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) made it absolutely clear that before an Assessing Office…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reopening the assessment. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Company: 328 ITR 515 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.: 325 ITR 285 to submit that the reopening was bad in the eyes of the law. Further, reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions wherein it had been held that the reopening done on the basis of report/information received from the investigation wing without application of mind or to undertake the roving and fishing enquiries by the AO was void…

Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ls (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 (Delhi)/[2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi)[21-07-2011] xi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi)[23-05- 2007] xii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 69 (Delhi)[27-04-2010] xiii) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC)[23-05-2007] 7. It is alleged that if the Ld. AO simply proceeds on the basis of information from investigation wing without himself making any…

M/S. Bna Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…d that the conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction. Besides the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del),GRD Commodities Ltd Vs PCIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 223(Cal), PCIT Vs Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bom) and Sarthak Securities Co Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 329ITR 110(Del). 014. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2025. Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)…