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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (345 ITR 223), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 133A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (345 ITR 223)

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…/s 151 (PB7-8). He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) ii. Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Limited iii. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) iv. CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). v. CIT vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd.(2015) 232 TAXMAN 0414 (Delhi HC) vi. Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 Del HC 2. No Satisfaction or application of mind by the Pr. CIT: Further on perusal of the reason recorded and approval u/s 151 by the without competent authority it is clearly proved that they have not applied t…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[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. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…/s 151 (PB7-8). He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) ii. Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Limited iii. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) iv. CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). v. CIT vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd.(2015) 232 TAXMAN 0414 (Delhi HC) vi. Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 Del HC 2. No Satisfaction or application of mind by the Pr. CIT: Further on perusal of the reason recorded and approval u/s 151 by the without competent authority it is clearly proved that they have not applied t…

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

…same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223 (Delhi). 7. On the other hand, Learned DR objected to the admission of additional grounds of appeal stating that such grounds were not raised before the lower authorities and as such the same could not be raised at this stage. 7 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 8. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the said grounds c…

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

…same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223 (Delhi). 7. On the other hand, Learned DR objected to the admission of additional grounds of appeal stating that such grounds were not raised before the lower authorities and as such the same could not be raised at this stage. 7 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 8. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the said grounds c…

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

…same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223 (Delhi). 7. On the other hand, Learned DR objected to the admission of additional grounds of appeal stating that such grounds were not raised before the lower authorities and as such the same could not be raised at this stage. 7 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 8. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the said grounds c…

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

…same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223 (Delhi). 7. On the other hand, Learned DR objected to the admission of additional grounds of appeal stating that such grounds were not raised before the lower authorities and as such the same could not be raised at this stage. 7 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 8. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the said grounds c…

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

…he reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 38. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her sa…

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

…he reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 38. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her sa…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8570/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2007-08

Section 115JSection 120Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 6. 109(DeL ITAT) 7. Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) 8. Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 IT!? 443(Bom. HC) 9. CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Del. HC) 3.18. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR, with the assistance of Ld. AO, vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld. Senior Counsel and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass th…

ACIT Cir. 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2930/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151

…rized u/s 151 of the Act including a superior officer, is a jurisdictional defect in the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decisions of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SPL‟s Siddhartha LTd reported in 345 ITR 223 (Del) and CIT vs Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd reported in 58 taxmann.com 336 (Del). It was argued that it is trite law that if the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, more particularly acts conferring jurisdiction like the present one, then, such act has to be done in that manner alone. Section 151 of the Act clearly demarcat…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCI…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCI…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCI…

Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue keeping all other issues and unadjudicated

ITA 7583/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 3552, 105-10, Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Ward-23(1), Bazar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics8635G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manorath Tyagi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 151(2)Section 263Section 68

…proceedings pursuant thereto are bad in law. 4. On the previous date, i.e., August 30, 2017, this court noted that the petitioner was placing reliance on the decision of the court in CIT v. SPL's Sidhartha Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 138/204 Taxman 115 (Mag.)/345 ITR 223 (Delhi) and urged that even if such approval had been granted, as in the present case, by the officer superior, i.e., the DIT, it would not cure the defect. The learned counsel for the Department sought time to produce the relevant file. 5. The relevant file has been produced before the court. There is a single note sheet in the file and it is da…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5546/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5542/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5540/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4903/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4901/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5545/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…f his written submissions which read as under:- 8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority…

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

ACIT Cir. 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi