CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

345 ITR 223High Court2012#594 most cited

What is CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. · Section 151 · Section 147 · Section 148 · validity of reassessment · sanction for reassessment · approval without application of mind · borrowed satisfaction · mechanical approval · income escaping assessment

Also reported as

167 Taxmann.com 113

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 271AAASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

approval under section 151section 151(2)section 151(1)sanctioning authoritymaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 292bnon application of mindborrowed satisfactionincome escaping assessmentspecified authoritysection 151non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

VAIBHAV REALITY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1) (OLD WARD-2(1)(4)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1325/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147(2)(b)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

…. Reliance was placed on the following decisions for the aforestated proposition of law: ➤CIT v. Aquatic Remedies P. Ltd. - [2020] 113 taxmann.com 451 (SC); ➤CIT v. Aquatic Remedies P. Ltd. - [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay); CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. - [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi); ➤ Kisan Discretionary Trust v. ACIT-ITA No. 608/Ahd/2005; ITA No.1325/Ahd/2024 [Vaibhav Reality Development Limited vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 – ➤Sardar Balbir Singh v. ITO-[2015] 39 ITR(T) 574 (Lucknow- Trib.) 8. With respect to the facts of the case, he pointed out that the impugned assessment year before us was A.Y. 2014-15. That noti…

BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebalaji Marbles & Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -1, 12 Dunne Market, Bargawan, Udaipur. Jabalpur Road, Madhya Pradesh – 483501. Pan No. Aaccb 4886 C Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca (Virtual) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [Cit(A)], Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Books Of Account During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Enhancing The Addition On Account Of Gp Addition Of Rs 94,24,706/-. 3. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Comparing The Gp Ratio Of Assessee As 2.07% Whereas The Assessee Explained

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 69A

…dly exercise such a power. The said proposition has been upheld to an extent that even the officer assuming superior authority cannot record his/her satisfaction on behalf of the lower authority. Reference may be made SPL's Siddhartha Ltd — Delhi High Court — 345 ITR 223 where the requisite sanction u/s 151 for re-opening of assessment u/s 147, was given by the CIT instead of the JCIT. The High Court noted that as per the provisions of section 151, in the case at hand it was the JCIT who should have approved the re- opening and held as follows: "Section 116 also defines the Income-tax authorities as different an…

ASHOK KUMAR,MERRUT vs. ITO, MEEUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5090/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year 2011-12 Asok Kumar S/O Sher Singh Vs. Ito 24, Nagli, Azamabad Ward -1 (1) Meerut -250001 Meerut Pan No.Blapk3060J Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Manish Kumar, Advocate Respondent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 142Section 148

…Additional/ PCIT submitted that the approval was obtained from both the authorities i.e. Addl. CIT as well as the PCIT u/s.151 of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SLP’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that when sanction of Joint Commissioner is required obtaining sanction from Commissioner is valid. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that satisfaction of one authority cannot be substitute by satisfaction another authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also…

SHRI KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 65/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…o established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del-HC) 2012 Tax Pub(DT) 1806 (Del-HC) and also of the Honourable Supreme Court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under- 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION' a…

SHRI KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 63/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…o established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del-HC) 2012 Tax Pub(DT) 1806 (Del-HC) and also of the Honourable Supreme Court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under- 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION' a…

KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 407/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…o established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del-HC) 2012 Tax Pub(DT) 1806 (Del-HC) and also of the Honourable Supreme Court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under- 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION' a…

SHRI VASHRAMBHAI GHELABHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CEN.CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 451/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…o established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del-HC) 2012 Tax Pub(DT) 1806 (Del-HC) and also of the Honourable Supreme Court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under- 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law, 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION' a…

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

ITA 5653/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

…rity. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner. In a similar situation the Delhi High Court in CIT. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (ITA No 836 of 2011 decided on September 14, 2011)-since reported in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) held that powers which are conferred upon a particular authority have to be exercised by that authority and the satisfaction which the statute mandates of a distinct authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Delhi High Court." 32. In the wake of the above, since…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROHTAK vs. PANKAJ JAIN, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292BSection 37(1)

…Ld. PCIT, Rohtak which is in gross violation on Sec. 151 of the Act, which renders 6 the whole re-assessment proceedings null and void. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :-  Ghansnyam K. Khabrani 346 ITR 443 (Born)  SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Delhi)  Sunint Investment & Technologies P. Ltd. 54 SOT 126 (Del) 5. Ld. CIT (A) perused the written submissions and observed that the assessee has raised some of the valid objections in the written submissions dated 07.01.2025 by filing notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. From the said notice, ld. CIT (A) observed that the information that…

M/S BAJRANG LAL JINDAL,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…R relied upon the orders of the ITAT Delhi ‘F’ Bench in the case Udesh Sharma vs. ITO in ITA No. 7579/DEL/2017 dated 29.03.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Bench, after relying on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. SPLs Siddhartha Limited 345 ITR 223 Del and PCIT vs. Minakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 395 ITR 677 had held that the authority issuing the notice under section 148 should apply his / her independent mind to record his / her satisfaction and that satisfaction should not be, ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’. 6. Containing his arguments on the validity of the notice, the ld. AR pointed out that the…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) DelhinotO/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Jaipur). In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del).Reassessment— Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice u/s 147 read with S. 148 for reopening assessment after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, which was subsequently set aside by ITAT on ground that requisite approval of Additional CIT, which is mandatorily required, was not taken—Held, AO was requi…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) DelhinotO/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Jaipur). In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del).Reassessment— Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice u/s 147 read with S. 148 for reopening assessment after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, which was subsequently set aside by ITAT on ground that requisite approval of Additional CIT, which is mandatorily required, was not taken—Held, AO was requi…

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1637/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner. In a similar situation the Delhi High Court in CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (ITA No. 836 of 2011 decided on September 14, 2011)--since reported in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) held that powers which are conferred upon a particular authority have to be exercised by that authority and the satisfaction which the statute mandates of a distinct authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Delhi High Court." 32. In the wake of the above, sinc…

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (Bom), CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (delhi )and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :— ­­13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law', 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURRENDER, ABDICATION, DICTATION' and 36 Peeyush Agarwal, Ja…

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 256/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

…any other manner than which has been prescribed. This view has been\nadopted in Nazir Ahmed v/s King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253(2)).\n37. The above jurisprudence equally applies to taxation laws as well.\nReference may be taken from CIT v/s SPL's Sidhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Del.)\n(referred in ITAT Delhi ITA No.1185 & 1186/Del./2009 dated 24/02/2016 at\nPage-10 &11) it is observed at Page-227 reproduced herein below:-\n\"It is trite that when a statute requires, a thing to be done in a certain manner,\nit shall be done in that manner alone and the Court would not accept it being\ndone in some other manner.\"\n38. A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव उपाध्यक्ष एवं, श्री कृणवन्त सहाय लेखा सदस्य,\nBEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 888/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\n\n| बनाम |\nThe DCIT\nCentral Circle I, Ludhiana, Punjab\nRosha Alloys P Limited\nAmloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi\nGobindgarh, Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N\nअपीलार्थी/ Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव उपाध्यक्ष एवं, श्री कृणवन्त सहाय लेखा सदस्य,\nBEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM\nआयकर अपील सं / . ITA No. 888/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nRosha Alloys P Limited\nAmloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi\nGobindgarh, Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N\nअपीलार्थी/ Appellant\nबनाम\nThe DCIT\nCentral Circle I, Ludhiana, Punjab\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 921/Ch…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव उपाध्यक्ष एवं, श्री कृणवन्त सहाय लेखा सदस्य,\nBEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 888/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nRosha Alloys P Limited\nAmloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi\nGobindgarh, Punjab\nबनाम\nThe DCIT\nCentral Circle I, Ludhiana, Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 921/Chd/…

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव उपाध्यक्ष एवं, श्री कृणवन्त सहाय लेखा सदस्य,\nBEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 888/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nRosha Alloys P Limited\nAmloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi\nGobindgarh, Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N\nअपीलार्थी/ Appellant\nबनाम\nThe DCIT\nCentral Circle I, Ludhiana, Punjab\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 921/Chd…

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…T, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Borm.) 12. The ld. AR further argued that the Approval under Section 151 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind and is mechanical in law and relied on the judgement of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223(Del). 13. The ld. AR further submitted that the Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021 (Ground 6). It is submitted that paragraph 2 of the said Instruction clearly states that no other category of cases except as stated in paragraph 1 of the said Instruction "shall be" considered for ta…

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...