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 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 250Section 151Section 142(1)Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)borrowed satisfactionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatortangible materialmere change of opinionlive linkreason to believereopening of assessmentescapement of incomeincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

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

…n of mind by the AO. In our opinion the AO is duty bound to first enquire into the issue after receiving information otherwise the re-opening can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by a series of decisions namely SFIL Stock Broking 325 ITR 285 ( Del), and Signature Hotel Pvt Ltd VS ITO 338 ITR 51 ( Del) . In both the above decisions , the Hon’ble court has held that the AO has to apply his mind to the information received and independently arrive at a belief that income has escaped. In the case of CIT Vs Insecticide India Ltd. 357 ITR 330(Del) the Hon’ble Court has held that the re-ope…

M/S Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata (PAN: AABCG 0649 P) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 25.09.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 09.10.2024 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से Shri Sunil Surana, C…

Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 792/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Aabce7790H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Of Rs.2,47,48,393/- Incurred By The Assessee In Commodities Dealing In National Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Limited (‘Nmce’) Platform & Further Making Addition Of Rs.4,92,263/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Commission That Might Have Been Paid By The Assessee In Booking The Aforesaid Bogus Loss In Commodity Trading.

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700026. [PAN: AABCE7790H] vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concludi…

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…a Power Delhi Distribution Limited: ITA No.689 of 2016 (Del.) - Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT: 184 Taxman 210 (Del.) - Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 272 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT vs. Vineeta Jain and CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) - CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285 (Del) - Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 161 (Bom) - Hindutan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) - - BhogwatiSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. vs. DCIT: 269 ITR 186 (Bom) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 200 (Bom) - Grindwell Norton vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 673 (Bom) - - CIT v. Abdul Rahman Sait: 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) - Asteroids T…

Seema Singh, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. No. 405/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Seema Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata. C-40, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Bahadurpur, Asansol-713362. (PAN: CABPS3805E) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2024 For the Assessee Shri Sunil Surana, AR For the Respondent Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appe…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed 28.10.2015 Reopening solely on the basis of information received from another AO that the assessee has booked bogus bills but without independent application of mind to the information renders the reopening void. (vi) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 98 (Del) Reassessment-Reason to believe-Reopening on directions of superior officers-50-called reasons recorded by the AO for reopening assessee's assessment comprises mere information received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) followed by directions of the very same officer and the Addl. CIT to initiate proceedings under s. 147- These cannot be the reas…

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56

…Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax v.G&G Pharma (2015) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs Insecticides India Ltd 357 ITR 330, Delhi High Court. vii) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285, Delhi High Court; (viii)Sarthak Securities Co. (P).Ltd vs ITO, 329 ITR 110, (Delhi HC); (ix) PCIT vs RMG Poly Vinyl (1) Ltd Delhi High Court; (x) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 421 (Del). 7 Santosh Khunteta Vs. ITO 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the notice dated 31st…

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd. (2017) 156 DTR (Del) 79; (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del), Principal CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) 1254 DTR (Del) 100 : (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del.) CI vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd (2010) 233 CTT (Del)69; (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 98: (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), SABH Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198(Del), Future Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 89 ITR (Trib) 676 and Century Fiscal Services Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 210 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 26 followed”. 10. In this view of the matter and by following the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…refore the AO has simply relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and has not applied his mind. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein it was held that the AO has to apply his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that income had escaped assessment otherwise the reopening of assessment cannot be sustained. In our considered view the reasons have to be read as recorded and there cannot be any substitution or addition or deletion to the reason…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…refore the AO has simply relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and has not applied his mind. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein it was held that the AO has to apply his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that income had escaped assessment otherwise the reopening of assessment cannot be sustained. In our considered view the reasons have to be read as recorded and there cannot be any substitution or addition or deletion to the reason…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…refore the AO has simply relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and has not applied his mind. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein it was held that the AO has to apply his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that income had escaped assessment otherwise the reopening of assessment cannot be sustained. In our considered view the reasons have to be read as recorded and there cannot be any substitution or addition or deletion to the reason…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…refore the AO has simply relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and has not applied his mind. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. in [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein it was held that the AO has to apply his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that income had escaped assessment otherwise the reopening of assessment cannot be sustained. In our considered view the reasons have to be read as recorded and there cannot be any substitution or addition or deletion to the reason…

Sangeeta Goel, Patna vs. CCIT, NFAC, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…case of ITO, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.); 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities. 5 I.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Reopening of the assessment proceedings is in challenge before us. Admittedly, the assessee had…

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…l/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. including the examination of the income tax return filed by the assessee. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Shri Atul Jain [299 ITR 383 (Delhi)] ii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285 (Delhi)] iii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Delhi)] iv) PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] v) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [396 ITR 5 (Del)] vi) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)] 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A)…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed 28.10.2015 Reopening solely on the basis of information received from another AO that the assessee has booked bogus bills but without independent application of mind to the information renders the reopening void. (vi) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 98 (Del) Reassessment-Reason to believe-Reopening on directions of superior officers- 50-called reasons recorded by the AO for reopening assessee's assessment comprises mere information received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) followed by directions of the very same officer and the Addl. CIT to initiate proceedings under s. 147- These cannot be the rea…

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal
Section 234BSection 68

…ion of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be formation of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be formation of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be judged at that judged at that stage. In SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 stage. In SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), the Bench has interfered as it was not discernible whether (Delhi), the Bench has interfered as it was not discernible whether (Delhi), the Bench has interfered as it was not discernible whether the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the information and the Assessing Officer had…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…etween the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on the facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief then the exercise undertaken by the Income-tax Officer can be interfered with. > CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del HC) Where on basis of information given by Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Assessing Officer reopened assessment and from so-called reasons, it was not at all discernible as to whether Assessing Officer had applied his mind to information and independently arrived at a belief that, on basis of material which he had before him, income had…

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…referred to before us by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, clearly hold the belief to be that of the AO and not a borrowed belief for a valid assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act: Commissioner of Income Tax v Sfil Stock Broking Ltd.(2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: 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 12 Income-tax (Inv.) to issue…

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…referred to before us by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, clearly hold the belief to be that of the AO and not a borrowed belief for a valid assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act: Commissioner of Income Tax v Sfil Stock Broking Ltd.(2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: 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 12 Income-tax (Inv.) to issue…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. R/O B- 4/43, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle -2 New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 Pan No.Aaacg3209Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 66Section 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…