CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

345 ITR 223High Court2012#598 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 366,470 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)
Read the full judgment

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.

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 5544/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 5543/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

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 5541/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

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 4902/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…

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 4898/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

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 4897/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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…2A) was to be given by the assessing officer as per the first proviso below section 142(2C). A. 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.) Submission All these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons r…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1849/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…2A) was to be given by the assessing officer as per the first proviso below section 142(2C). A. 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.) Submission All these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons r…

Prakash Chand Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5759/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Prakash Chand Jain, Income Tax Officer – Prop. Of M/S. Prachi Ward 2(4), Gems, Thane Shop No.10, Vs. Asmita Bridge Tower, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane - 401107 Pan: Aetpj 5174K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer – Shri Prakash Chand Ward 2(4), Jain, Room No.12, Prop. Of Prachi Gems, 6Th Floor, Shop No.10, Asmita, Vs. Ashar It Park, Bridge Tower, B-Wing, Midc, Nayanagar, Wagle Indl. Estate, Mira Road (E), Thane (W)- 400 604 Thane Pan: Aetpj 5174K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Madhusudan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…count also. In defence of his arguments that reopening is bad in law for the reasons that the approval has not been obtained from CIT in terms of provisions of section 151(1) of the Act. the Ld. A.R. cited the decisions namely CIT vs. SPL Siddardh Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del.) and Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. CIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom.- HC).The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand (2015) 60 taxmann.com 450 (Gujarat) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that in absence of application of mind in the case of the assessee would not co…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4893/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/2010 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dt. 29.03.2010 Farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del ITAT); Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC); Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4543/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/2010 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dt. 29.03.2010 Farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del ITAT); Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC); Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Henna Industries Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 2729/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2007-08 Dcit Vs. M/S. Henna Industries Pvt. Ltd. Circle, 1 Plot No. 45, Sector 27A Faridabad Faridabad Pan Aabch7692B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ened beyond the period of four years and the sanction of CIT, Faridabad was obtained in place of JCIT, Range-1, Faridabad. Exactly similar facts have been examined by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. reported in (2012) 345 ITR 223(Delhi) wherein it has been held that if the AO has issued notice u/s 147 read with section 148 for reopening the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without requisite approval of the Additional CIT, which is mandatorily required (even though the 6 DCIT vs Henna Industries Pvt. Ltd. & CO No.148/Del/…

M/S Charam Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkat vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 117(1)Section 120Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 2Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम" "ी ए.ट". वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ ए.एल. सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 758/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Charm Vincom Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata. Vs. (PAN: AADCC 4524 B) Appellant Respondent For the Appellant Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv. For the Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 01.01.2020 ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the action of the CIT(A)-1…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25, Kolkata……………………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/s. Mala Roy & Others……………………………………………………....................……………….…..Respondent 192D, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road Tollygunge Kolkata – 700 040 [PAN : AAJFM 7391 P] C.O. No. 40/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others……………………………………………………....................……………….……. Appellant 192D, Netaji Subh…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25, Kolkata……………………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/s. Mala Roy & Others……………………………………………………....................……………….…..Respondent 192D, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road Tollygunge Kolkata – 700 040 [PAN : AAJFM 7391 P] C.O. No. 40/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others……………………………………………………....................……………….……. Appellant 192D, Netaji Subh…

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order date. 29.03.2010 6. 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/201 0 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(DeL ITAT) Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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 32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, A…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/201 0 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(DeL ITAT) Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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 32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, A…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/201 0 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(DeL ITAT) Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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 32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, A…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…26L/Luk/201 0 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 1-farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(DeL ITAT) Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 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 32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, A…