CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.

313 ITR 231High Court2009#2102 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. authority for?

This case establishes principles for distinguishing operating leases from finance leases and determining if leased equipment constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE). It also clarifies that reassessment proceedings initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind are invalid.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. · 313 ITR 231 · Section 9(1)(vi) · Section 147 · operating lease · finance lease · permanent establishment · PE aircraft · DTAA · reassessment · borrowed satisfaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 5(1)Section 11Section 12Section 7
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

dtaa benefitprincipal purpose testmultilateral instrumentsection 90(1)use of equipmentfixed place petreaty benefitscommercial substancesection 147(1)pptsubstance over formtax residency certificate

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Assistant Commissioner of Shri Babu Lal Data, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle, 20, 21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo d…

63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Known As Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. - 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A.KariaFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40Section 92C

…submits that even on facts, the bonds have not been converted into shares. In this regard, the assessee relies on judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of S M Holding 264 ITR 370 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd 269 ITR 461. In case of S M Holding 264 ITR 370 (Bom), copy enclosed at page 599-601 of Paper book 3, the premium on redemption of debentures was disallowed on the ground that the same is contingent liability. The assessee draws attention to para 5 on page 600 of paper book 3. In case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd 269 ITR 461 (Raj), copy enclosed at page 551…

Smt. Anjana Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1214/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Smt. Anjana Sharma, I.T.O., Vs. M-115-B, Plot No. F-115, Mahesh Ward 2(2), Colony, J.P. Underpass, Tonk Jaipur. Road, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bgdps 5144 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 148

…on; That Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and facts in issuing notice u/s 148 without having personal satisfaction in respect of escaped Income. Satisfaction of DDIT(I&CI), Jaipur is called as borrowed satisfaction. CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) SLP dismissed; (2009) 313 ITR (St 27 (SC) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 287 CTR (Del) 621.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. At the outset, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has stated at bar the additional…

Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 68

…sdiction and further AO not recorded his satisfaction and re- assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction which was not sufficient to confer power on the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings against the assessee. CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) SLP dismissed :(2009) 313 ITR (St.) 27 (SC) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Lt. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016)287 CTR ( Del.) 621 2. Re- assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) :- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in completing assessment u/s 147 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of…

M/S. Kuvawala Drill Equip, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hq-6(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2535/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri D.P ShroffFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2534 & 2535/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Kuvawala Drill Equip Sub Plot No.2, Final Plot No.68, Ramtekdi, Indl Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 PAN : AAIFK4139Q .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, HQ-6(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri D.P Shroff Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

M/S. Kuvawala Drill Equip, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hq-6(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2534/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri D.P ShroffFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2534 & 2535/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Kuvawala Drill Equip Sub Plot No.2, Final Plot No.68, Ramtekdi, Indl Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 PAN : AAIFK4139Q .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, HQ-6(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri D.P Shroff Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2294/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Divya Bajpai
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2294/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. B-19A, Ranjangaon MIDC, Tal. Shirur, Pune-412 209 PAN : AAACF1716D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala Revenue by : Smt. Divya Bajpai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख…

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

…ion, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 50 of 64 73. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 231 (Raj) held that it has been very intelligibly projected that the factum of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai having allowed depreciation allowance to the lessee did constitute a fact which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer here and that furnished reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment bu…

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

…ion, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 50 of 64 73. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 231 (Raj) held that it has been very intelligibly projected that the factum of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai having allowed depreciation allowance to the lessee did constitute a fact which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer here and that furnished reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment bu…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…ficer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. 47. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 231 (Raj) held that it has been very intelligibly projected that the factum of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai having allowed depreciation allowance to the lessee did constitute a fact which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer here and that furnished reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment bu…

Shri Kana Ram Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1377/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kana Ram Kumawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. “Wisdom”, 23 Purohit Ji Baas, Ward- 2(1), Hawa Sarak, Laxmi Dharm Kanta Jaipur. Gali End, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahcpk 0149 H Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Anil Kaushik (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 11/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 148/144 By Ld. Ao Is Illegal & Bad In Law & Is Invalid Abinitio. 2. The Assessee Has Filed His Income Tax Return On Time, Obtained The Tax Audit Report On Time & The Return So Filed Was Processed & Refund Was Granted By The Department Which Is Duly Posted In 26As By The Department, Despite That Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated For The Reason That The Assessee Did Not File His Itr, Thus The Very Basis Of Selection Of The Case For Reassessment U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Ill Founded, Grossly Incorrect & False & In Contradiction With The Facts Available With The Department, Hence, The Reassessment Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…he factual position, the present proceedings were initiated on the reasons that the assessee did not file his ITR. The assessee has also relied upon the decision/judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shree Rajasthan Syntax Ltd. (2008) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) on the point that the A.O. had issued 8 ITA 1377/JP/2019 _ Kana Ram Kumawat Vs ITO notice in a mechanical manner without verifying the correctness of the information received by him. 12. Apparently, the A.O. has failed to discharge the obligation cast upon him by the Statute by verifying the correctness of the information before initiatin…

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3009 & 3010/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS4913P (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3011/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS3598L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3012/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt. Vs. Pr.CIT-8, Lt…

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3009 & 3010/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS4913P (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3011/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS3598L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3012/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt. Vs. Pr.CIT-8, Lt…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3009 & 3010/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS4913P (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3011/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS3598L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3012/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt. Vs. Pr.CIT-8, Lt…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3009 & 3010/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS4913P (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3011/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-8, 4062-630, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAKCS3598L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.3012/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt. Vs. Pr.CIT-8, Lt…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…tion, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 31 of 40 42. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 231 (Raj) held that it has been very intelligibly projected that the factum of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai having allowed depreciation allowance to the lessee did constitute a fact which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer here and that furnished reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment bu…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…tion, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and without the same, the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 31 of 40 42. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 231 (Raj) held that it has been very intelligibly projected that the factum of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai having allowed depreciation allowance to the lessee did constitute a fact which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer here and that furnished reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment bu…

Shri Brij Raj Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1174/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shafi Mohammad (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…otice U/s 148, the satisfaction must of the AO himself and the borrowed satisfaction cannot be treated as satisfaction of the Assessing officer. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. 313 ITR 231. Further drawing our reference to reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that the AO has recorded the reasons stating that the assessee has sold the property for total consideration of Rs. 6,70,360/- which has been valued at Rs 905000 for purposes of charging of stamp duty. It was further submitted that this is factually not…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…eedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus expenditure for the following reasons:- ‘’(i)A letter from the director of Sakshi Trade Links Pvt Ltd, Shri.Suraj confirm…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…eedings must be quashed and placed reliance on the following Hon’ble High Court decisions. Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd (2018) 167 DTR 290 (Bom) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj). On the merits of the additions payments made to M/s. Sakshi 11. Trade Link Pvt Ltd, he submitted that payments were made towards liasoning services and he further submitted that expenditure cannot be treated as bogus expenditure for the following reasons:- ‘’(i)A letter from the director of Sakshi Trade Links Pvt Ltd, Shri.Suraj confirm…