CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

378 ITR 84High Court2015#333 most cited
254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society · Sinhgad Technical Education Society · Section 153C · Section 153A · search assessment · other person assessment · satisfaction note · seized material · SSP Aviation Ltd. distinction · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

63 Taxmann.com 14235 Taxmann 163278 CTR 144

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 153atosection 153b(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 153c proceedingssection 113section 153b(1)section 158bdsection 153c(1)panchnamablock periodsatisfaction notebest judgment assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2014/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…YA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. reported in 387 ITR 529 (Guj) 4) DESAI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., reported in 387 ITR 552 [Guj] 5) CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPN. [NHAVA SHEVA] LTD., reported in 374 ITR 654 (Bom) 6) CIT V. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2013/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…YA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. reported in 387 ITR 529 (Guj) 4) DESAI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., reported in 387 ITR 552 [Guj] 5) CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPN. [NHAVA SHEVA] LTD., reported in 374 ITR 654 (Bom) 6) CIT V. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…evenue has not pointed out any reason why the construction put on Section 153C of the Act by Gujarat High Court is not correct/appropriate. We find that in any case our Court has also taken a similar view in CIT V/s. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2015] 378 ITR 84/235 Taxman 163/63 taxmann.com 14 (Bom.) and refused to entertain Revenue's appeal”. 10. We have further perused the „Satisfaction note‟ of the A.O, as well as the seized documents, viz. Page No. 107-108 (supra) which had been referred to by the A.O to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 153C in the case of the assessee company. We fi…

Sarang & Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 1227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Ita Nos. 1227 To 1229/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2009-10) M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ 302, Shabnam Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-36, 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafs0638J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

…Revenue has not pointed out any reason why the construction put on Section 153C of the Act by Gujarat High Court is not correct/appropriate. We find that in any case our Court has also taken a similar view in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2015) 378 ITR 84 and refused to entertain Revenue's appeal.” We further find that following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai Vs. National Standard India Ltd. (2017) 166 ITD 426 (Mum) had also concluded that in the absence of any document belonging to the assessee h…

Gitanjali Infratech Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

ITA 1366/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1366/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3486/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3487/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Gitanjali Infratech Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), A-1, 7Th Floor, Laxmi Tower, G Block 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Mk Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaccg 7677 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal/Ms.Neha Paranjpe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2018 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 28/4/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 47,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Present Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay.S (Ay.S) .The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential/Commercial Buildings.Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Assessment Dates Etc., Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2008-09 3.12.2013 Rs.6,41,16,960/- 20/03/2014 Rs.6.46 Crores 2010-11 30/11/12 Rs.75,91,149/- 20/03/2014 Rs.7.77 Lakhs 2011-12 30/11/2012 Rs.31,54,224/- 20/03/2014 Rs.17.68 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Ms.Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 57

…the AO and all the AY.s was based on regular books of accounts, that the same did not have any nexus with the seized material, that the assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the act were bad in law. He relied upon the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (378 ITR 84) of the honorable Bombay High Court that was later on confirmed by the honorable Supreme Court (397 ITR 344). He further contended that the return for the AY. 2008-09 was processed and accepted u/s.143 (1)of the Act,that no assessment was pending when the AO passed the order u/s.153C, that the order passed by him was bad in law. He relied upon the…

M/S. Pentagon Builders, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 81/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Manjunatha G, AM ITA No.78/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.79/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.80/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.81/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Pentagon Builders Dy.Commissioner of 968, N, M.N.S.Avenue Vs. Income-tax P.T.Usha Road, Central Circle – 2 Calicut – 673 001. Kozhikode. PAN : AAIFP7272M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. G.Surendranatha Rao Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2017 Date of Hearing : 11.12.2017 O R D…

M/S. Pentagon Builders, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 80/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Manjunatha G, AM ITA No.78/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.79/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.80/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.81/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Pentagon Builders Dy.Commissioner of 968, N, M.N.S.Avenue Vs. Income-tax P.T.Usha Road, Central Circle – 2 Calicut – 673 001. Kozhikode. PAN : AAIFP7272M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. G.Surendranatha Rao Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2017 Date of Hearing : 11.12.2017 O R D…

M/S. Pentagon Builders, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 79/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Manjunatha G, AM ITA No.78/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.79/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.80/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.81/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Pentagon Builders Dy.Commissioner of 968, N, M.N.S.Avenue Vs. Income-tax P.T.Usha Road, Central Circle – 2 Calicut – 673 001. Kozhikode. PAN : AAIFP7272M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. G.Surendranatha Rao Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2017 Date of Hearing : 11.12.2017 O R D…

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &
Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…ermitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the ground on the merits as well. The High Court was right in affirming this view of the Tribunal. Decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2015] 378 ITR 84 (Bom) affirmed. (ii) That the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer covered eight assessment years. For six assessment years the assessment was under section 153C of the Act. The assessment order was set aside only in respect of four of those assessment years and on a technical ground. The objection pertaining to 36 ITA.No.2159/Del.…

Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6303/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Rastogi, A. RFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT [DR]
Section 153C

…1 I. T. Appeal No. 6303/Del/2013 AND I. T. Appeal No. 6342/Del/2013. Assessment Year : 2006-07. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES: “B” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. Appeal No. 6303/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner M – 11, Middle Circle, Vs. of Income Tax, Connaught Circus, Central Circle : 23, New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi. PAN : AAACC 3536 A A N D I. T. Appeal No. 6342/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07. Asstt. Commissioner Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., of Incom…

Sh. Ishwar Singh, Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2948/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 36

…as submitted is contrary to the settled legal position. Accordingly relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of ITA NO.2947 TO 2949/DEL/2016 ISHWAR SINGH VS ACIT Page 3 of 5 Tushar Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. vs Dy.DIT [2016] 380 ITR 412 (Del.) amongst others it was submitted that the assessment order deserves to be quashed. Inviting attention to the fact that the reassessment is based on the very same facts as were considered in the rectification proceedings which were dropped and where there is no new material it was re-iterated the re-assessment deserves to be quashed. Reli…

Sh. Ishwar Singh, Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2947/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 36

…as submitted is contrary to the settled legal position. Accordingly relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of ITA NO.2947 TO 2949/DEL/2016 ISHWAR SINGH VS ACIT Page 3 of 5 Tushar Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. vs Dy.DIT [2016] 380 ITR 412 (Del.) amongst others it was submitted that the assessment order deserves to be quashed. Inviting attention to the fact that the reassessment is based on the very same facts as were considered in the rectification proceedings which were dropped and where there is no new material it was re-iterated the re-assessment deserves to be quashed. Reli…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1991/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Yes Bank Limited DCIT, -8(3)(2) 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, discovery Room No.615, 6th Floor, A…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 79

…dia)Ltd. seeking to reopen the assessment, was reviewing his earlier order. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not valid.” We would also like to refer to the matter of Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. of the Hon’ble Delhi high court (380 ITR 412 ).In that case the assessee was a company incorporated in the U. S. A. and was a tax resident of the U. S. A. During the relevant financial years, it derived income from the grant of exclusive rights to TIIPL in India to sell advertising on the products and to distribute certain products. It filed its returns for the assessment years 2007-08 and…