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, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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…

Bhopal Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 656/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 251Section 45Section 48(2)

…cquisition. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that the reopening is not valid and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Rajasthan Syntax Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del). 4. On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that the assessee has not disclosed any capital gain in his return of income and subsequently the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee has sold as man…

Natthi Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Bharatpur

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 563/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ere with the independence of the assessing authority which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sohan Devi Sodani, 303 ITR 342 (Raj.). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is not the case of reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing…

Bharatpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Bharatpur

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ere with the independence of the assessing authority which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sohan Devi Sodani, 303 ITR 342 (Raj.). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is not the case of reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing…

Sishma Singh, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Bharatpur

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ere with the independence of the assessing authority which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sohan Devi Sodani, 303 ITR 342 (Raj.). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is not the case of reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing…

Vimlesh Faujdar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Bharatpur

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ere with the independence of the assessing authority which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sohan Devi Sodani, 303 ITR 342 (Raj.). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is not the case of reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing…

Subhash Singh, Jaipur vs. Ac, Bharatpur

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ere with the independence of the assessing authority which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sohan Devi Sodani, 303 ITR 342 (Raj.). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is not the case of reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…CIT: 225 ITR 802. On further appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal by holding that, since, during the relevant assessment year, no as deduction. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.: 269 ITR 461 (Rajasthan High Court) • CIT vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 393 ITR 625 (Gujarat High Court) • DCIT vs UAG Builders (P) Ltd.: 53 SOT 370 (Delhi ITAT) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs DCIT: 54 SOT 146 (Mumbai ITAT) • LMN India Limited: 307 ITR 40 (AAR) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the redemption prem…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…CIT: 225 ITR 802. On further appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal by holding that, since, during the relevant assessment year, no as deduction. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.: 269 ITR 461 (Rajasthan High Court) • CIT vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 393 ITR 625 (Gujarat High Court) • DCIT vs UAG Builders (P) Ltd.: 53 SOT 370 (Delhi ITAT) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs DCIT: 54 SOT 146 (Mumbai ITAT) • LMN India Limited: 307 ITR 40 (AAR) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the redemption prem…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…CIT: 225 ITR 802. On further appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal by holding that, since, during the relevant assessment year, no as deduction. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.: 269 ITR 461 (Rajasthan High Court) • CIT vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 393 ITR 625 (Gujarat High Court) • DCIT vs UAG Builders (P) Ltd.: 53 SOT 370 (Delhi ITAT) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs DCIT: 54 SOT 146 (Mumbai ITAT) • LMN India Limited: 307 ITR 40 (AAR) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the redemption prem…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…CIT: 225 ITR 802. On further appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal by holding that, since, during the relevant assessment year, no as deduction. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.: 269 ITR 461 (Rajasthan High Court) • CIT vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 393 ITR 625 (Gujarat High Court) • DCIT vs UAG Builders (P) Ltd.: 53 SOT 370 (Delhi ITAT) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs DCIT: 54 SOT 146 (Mumbai ITAT) • LMN India Limited: 307 ITR 40 (AAR) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the redemption prem…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…aben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (2015) 281 CTR 75, Pr. CIT vs. G & Pharma India ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 21 Ltd. ITA No. 545/2015 of Delhi, CIT vs. Smt. Sulochana (2005) 272 ITR 529 (Mad) and CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ld. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) may be adverted to. Somebody else’s opinion cannot become the incumbent Assessing Officers opinion for initiating a reassessment. The Delhi High Court is violation this issue. Please see Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51. 15. The relevant information as to the validity of the gift was already on record. The Assessing Office…

M/S Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, all the additions would

ITA 1632/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Premjit S. Kashyap, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rmanent account number in September, 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to be quashed." 8.1. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 313 ITR 231 held as under : 12 ITA.No.1632/Del./2017 Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Meerut. "The assessee company had leased out certain plant and machinery to another company under agreements executed on different dates for a specified period of time. The depreciation claimed by the assessee on the capital assets leased out to the lessee under section…

Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6758/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…by the AO on the basis of belief entertained by the another AO Ward 2(1), Meerut who made assessment of Nikhil Gupta”. Therefore, the action u/s. 147/148 is not sustainable in law in view of the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) (ii). ACIT vs. Radheyshyam Mohanlal Maheshwari, 50 SOT 75 (Ahd). 5. It was submitted that the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made in A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Nikhil Gupta stood deleted in appeal by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 15.11.2010 and the departmental appeal filed before the Tribunal stood dismissed due to low tax effect. It w…