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.

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

…nt application of mind. For this proposition reliance was placed on case laws:- i) PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd., 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del) ii) PCIT v. G&G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 109 (Del) iii) CIT v. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 iv) CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd., 357 ITR 330 39. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no recording of any reasons to believe for reopening for the year and in any case there was no reasons and material for the AY 2006-07 in the reasons so recorded. Therefore, issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is without a…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

Sushil Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3117/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…. The facts indicated above do not show that SS Ltd is a non existing and a 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 s…

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…s, the AO has merely borrowed satisfaction (as to escapement) from someone else, which is not sufficient to confer valid power upon the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings. He relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.) Surbhi Minchem P. Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 102 & 103/Jodh/2014 vide (ii) order dated 16.05.2014. (iii) Maple Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO 58 Tax world 273 Part V-VI (JP) and Nirmala Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT 58 Tax world 280 Part V-VI (JP) 8 ITA 1388/JP/2019 _ M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Vs DCIT (iv) Decision in case…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA Nos.7457, 7458 & 7459/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITA Nos.7466, 7467 & 7468/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ACIT, M/s. Key Tech, Central Circle-1(3), G/B, Shiv Chayya CHS 905, 9th Floor, Ltd., Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Sir M.V. Road, Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe) Andheri(E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAIFK9271B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.7475 & 7476/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…i. Pr. CIT vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del.) ii. Pr. CIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. in 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 Suprme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. viii. CIT vs Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom.) x. CIT vs Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81(SC) 15. The learned counsel for the assessee in his next plank of a…

Mesers Supertech Forgings(India) Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos.563/Asr/2018 Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s SupertechForgings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle- IV. Vill.Raowali,PathankotRoad, Jalandhar Jalandhar Pan No.AACCS0402M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor CA and Veer Sain Aggarwal Adv Respondent by Sh. Rajinder Kaur CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2021 ORDER Per, Dr. M. L. MEENA, A. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the l…

Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Pan – Ajxpk 8087H Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nder these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to require the assessee to go through the entire gamut of proceedings. It is totally unwarranted." 45. Similar view is taken by another Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285. In that case also, the AO had recorded the reasons to believe in similar manner, viz., more information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Court took the view that these were no reasons within the meaning :- 9 -: Baljit Kaur, Hyd. of Section 148 of the Act. Following discussion in this behalf needs to be no…

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shradha Tradelinks P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 656/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Shradha Tradelinks Income Tax-8(2)(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., 1108, Dalamal Aayakar Bhavan, Room Tower, Free Press No. 624, M.K. Road, Journal Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aafcs1489R (Assessee) (Revenue) C.O No.323/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 656/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Shradha Tradelinks Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, Circle 7(2), 1108, Dalamal Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aafcs1489R (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.R Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

…of the assessment u/s 147 was to be held as bad in law. Further, in ITA No. 656/Mum/2016 AND C.O No. 323/Mum/2017 18 (Arising out of ITA No.656/Mum/2016) A.Y. 2008-09 DCIT Vs. M/s Shradha Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. 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 was…

Savita Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 22(4), New Delhi

ITA 1389/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1389/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s Savita Holdings Pvt. ITO Ltd. Ward 22(4) [vs. B-1/14, Rana Pratap Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No. AABCS3394P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-31, New Delhi dat…

Chetan Rajnikant Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1948/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodchetan Rajnikant Shah Income Tax Officer-24(1)-4, 703, Jamuna Vihar, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Juhu Lane, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400058 Pan – Amqps6037D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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 ITA No. 1948/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 10 Chetan Rajnikant Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)-4 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 acc…

Pkc Securities, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2399/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…er reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.” 7. The importance and relevancy of the material to the information was discussed in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. by Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), wherein it was held that mere information is not a material and that even existence of material would not be sufficient to invoke reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act : “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 Ra…

Mr. Krishna Kumar Pant, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…ions before issuing notice u/s 148. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following decisions:- • Raj kumar (C) HUF reported in 2016-TIOL-727-ITAT- Bang • Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) • SFIL Stock Broking reported in 325 ITR 285 (Del) • RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while recording the ‘reasons’ it was imperative upon the Ld. AO to independently examine whether there existed any “benefit” which is taxable as income in nature of perquisites. He submitted that existence of “benefit” in the instant case was a “jurisdiction…

Mr. Sanjiv Narayan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5546/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5513/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

Mr. J.S. Gujral, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5512/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

Ganapati Developers, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 68

…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 &…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…a 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) Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del); vi) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del); vii) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del); viii) CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd.ITA No.266/2011 (Del); ix) CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd., 378 ITR 351; x) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported in [2004] 137 TAXMAN 479 (BOM.); xi) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC). 12 10. The ld. counsel for…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application filed by the assessee u/s 27 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 12(1)(1), M/S. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 430, 4Th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Aafca6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…decisions : 1. PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. – (2018) 93 Taxman.com 153 (Bombay) Nu Power Renewables Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle1(2) 2. 3. Pr CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd. 4. South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO 5. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. – (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) 6. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO – (2011) 338 ITR 0051 (Delhi) 7. M/s. Pransukhlal Brothers vs. ITO – (2015) 229 Taxman 444 (Bombay) The Ld. A.R. also submitted that in the present case the AO relied on the information which was received at the back of the assessee and was never supplied to the assessee despite specific requests made to…

M/S Shreyans Jain, HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 1602/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 147Section 250

…'ble Delhi placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of High Court in the case of CIT vs Insceticides (India) Ltd 357 ITR 330 and 357 ITR 330 and CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi). In both the aforesaid decisions the reasons . 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 recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act the Hon'ble Delhi recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the A…