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 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.

Mesers Shree Bhagwati Cotton Traders, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…the reassessment framed by the AO is quashed. ” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 10 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 h. Further, it has been held that reasons should be discernible from the material record in the following cases: (iii) CIT vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) (iv) Prashant S. Joshi vs ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154 (Bom) (v) ACIT vs. I.B.M World Trade Corporation [1995] 216 ITR 811 (Bom) (vi) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs RB Wadekar [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (BOM.) 6.3. In the present case, nothing is discernible to form the reasons as recorded by the AO, since how can self-withdrawals by the third party from…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Bathinda vs. Mesers Shree Bhagwati Cotton Traders, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…the reassessment framed by the AO is quashed. ” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 10 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 h. Further, it has been held that reasons should be discernible from the material record in the following cases: (iii) CIT vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) (iv) Prashant S. Joshi vs ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154 (Bom) (v) ACIT vs. I.B.M World Trade Corporation [1995] 216 ITR 811 (Bom) (vi) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs RB Wadekar [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (BOM.) 6.3. In the present case, nothing is discernible to form the reasons as recorded by the AO, since how can self-withdrawals by the third party from…

ITO Ward - 10(4), New Delhi vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5143/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcs7132B

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAHCS7132B Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 26.03.2019 of CIT(A)-08, New Delhi (hereinafter ref…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…he judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…he judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…he judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus ssioner of Income W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer…

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

ITA 82/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…of the reasons to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment was not discernible therefrom and accordingly the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was to be held as bad in law. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), it was inter alia observed by theHon’ble High Court that in the case before them the A.O had received information from the Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), Gurgaon that the assessee had raised a bogus claim of having earned long-term capital gains on account of sale/purchase of shares by obtaining entries. After deliberating on the facts, it was…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…we note that in the present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a wrong person. The impugned notice is, therefore, set aside. 9 M/s. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., 8. Petition is disposed of accordingly." CIT vs. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD [325 ITR 285 (Delhi HC)] Reassessment-Reason to believe-Reopening on directions of superior officers So 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 t…

Anirudh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1167/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…placed on record. 6.3 The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions in support of the proposition that reopening on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind is invalid:- i) Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) ii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. (2009) 329 ITR 110 iii) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) iv) RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann. Com 348 (Del) v) Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (5) TMT 1428 (Del) vi) G&G Pharma India Ltd. ITA 545/2015 (Del) 6.4 The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He su…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…com 245 (Gujarat); (h) Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand v. Dy. CIT reported in [2015] 376 ITR 419 (Gujarat) l. Further reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in re CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 285 where the Hon’ble Court held: “9. In the present case, we find that 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 no…

Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2279/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 1/04/2022
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…I.T.A. No. 2279/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., ACIT C/o. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] PAN : AACCK3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent N o n e; िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. R.; राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by : 1/04/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 29/04/2022 उ"…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…(i) Gateway leasing (P) Ltd - 426 ITR 228 (Bom) (ii) Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd- 422 ITR 337 (Born) (iii) Skyview consultants (P) Ltd - 423 ITR 677 (Del) Pages - 83-127 (PB-Vol.1) (iv) Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd - 395 ITR 677 (Del) (v) SFIL Stock Broking - 325 ITR 285 7.4 Conditions stipulated in proviso to section 147 are not complied with by the AO while reopening the assessment. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 10-112017 relating to AY 2010-11. Thus, the assessment was completed after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e 2010-11. The first proviso to section 147 sti…

Shri Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 272/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain Shop No.9, Kamala Super Bazar, Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Pan : Aacch4665D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the reasons to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment was not discernible therefrom and accordingly the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was to be held as bad in law. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), it was inter alia observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in the case before them the A.O had received information from the Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), Gurgaon that the assessee had raised a bogus claim of having earned long-term capital gains on account of sale/purchase of shares by obtaining entries. After deliberating on the facts, it wa…

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

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

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

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

Section 147

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

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…information provided by the Add!. D.1T 3. has been accepted as gospel truth without any verification by the Assessing Officer. The law postulates the Assessing Officer (and not the Add!. DTT) to have reason to believe, CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 Delhi 2, It was clear that the Assessing Officer referred to the information and the two directions as reasons on the basis of which he was proceeding to issue notice u/s 148. These could not be he reasons on the basis of which he was proceeding to issues notice u/s 148. These could not be the reasons for proceeding u/s 147/148. 4. Signature Hot…

Shanti Prakash Chawla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7218/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 251(2)

…llowing decisions:- 1. CIT Vs. (1) Atul Jain (2) Smt. Anita Jain Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. 299 ITR 383; 2. Bawa Abhai Singh Vs. DCIT Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. 253 ITR 82; 3. SFIL Stockbroking Co. Vs. ITO Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. 325 ITR 285. 8. On merits, he submitted that here in this case the property was purchased in financial year 2001-02 and at the time of purchase it had a very small covered area of 92.93 sq. mtrs. and it was an old property of more than 30 years. Thereafter the assessee had done huge construction work and ultimately the covered/construction area was 12 544.40…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…inyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del; ii. Pr. CIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd 384 ITR 147 (Del.); iii. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 (Del); iv. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 0051 (Del) v. CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del); vi. Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del); vii. CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd.ITA No.266/2011 (Del); viii. CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd 378 ITR 351 (Del.); ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported in [2004] 137 TAXMAN 479 (BOM.); x. CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC); xi. M/s Synfoni…

Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3), 175, 5Th Floor, 845, Shivneri Vs. Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Piramal Building, B.J. Marg, Byculla West, Chambers Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Acspj 3509 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…In this regard we rely on the following decisions: i. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); ii. S. P. Agarwalla v ITO [1983] 140 ITR 1010 (Cal); iii. ITO v Dwarka Dass & Brothers [1981] 131 ITR 571 (Del); iv. CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del); and v. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. V ITO (2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del). Further, Supreme Court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v Appellate Assistant Commissioner [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), held that reopening of assessment can be done on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour.” CIT(A) order “4.2.1 The…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…l Dinesh Kumar Shah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No. 16705/2018), and the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Del), Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on th…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…l Dinesh Kumar Shah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No. 16705/2018), and the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Del), Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on th…