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 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 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 271AAA Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

approval under section 151 section 151(2)section 151(1)sanctioning authority material facts necessary for assessment section 292b non application of mind borrowed satisfaction income escaping assessment specified authority section 151 non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

Vaman International P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1040/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1040 & 1041/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: (2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Vaman International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. 119, 1St Floor, Durian बिधम/ Income Tax-13(3)(2), Industrial Estate, Goregaon Mumbai. Vs. Mulund Link Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcv5464F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…esaid contention that the sanction of the appropriate authority before issuing the notice u/s 148 was an indispensable statutory requirement, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. SPL‘S Siddhartha Ltd’ (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del). The Ld. A.R further to buttress his aforesaid contention, also placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DSJ Communication Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1) and Anr. (CWP No. 722 of 2011, dt 13.09.2012). 8. The Ld. A.R. adverting to the merits of the case submitted that both of the lower authorities had proc…

ITO, WD-39(2), Midnapore vs. G. S. Sharma & Ors., Paschim Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1233/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…he permission from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax but the assessment was reopened after taking permission from Commissioner of Income Tax-XIX, Kolkata. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue in the case of CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. [2012]345 ITR 223, wherein their Lordships held as under:-- "Held, that under section 151 of the Act, it was only the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, who could grant the approval for issue of notice under section 148. The approval was not 5 I.T.A. No.1233Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2008-09 G.S. Sharma & Ors. granted by the Joint Commissioner. Instead,…

M/S. Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4520/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 4520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 181-C, Western Avenue, Sainik Ward-12(4), Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0276J Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…upported by the various Hon'ble High Courts decisions which includes Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other Division Bench 346 ITR 443; Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. SPL's Sidharth Limited Division Bench 345 ITR 223 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decision in the case of Anirudhsingh Ji Karan Singh Ji Jedeja versus State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SSC 302. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned 9 Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd. order on the basis of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'bl…

M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA is allowed

ITA 2212/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2002-03 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Shiva Rubber Industries, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon. Hari Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaefs 7721G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 11.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eight Grounds Of Appeal, I.E., The Legal Grounds As Well As Grounds On Merit. “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Serving The Mandatory Notices Under Sections 142(1), 148 & 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing Impugned Assessment Order Without Complying The Mandatory Conditions Of Section 147 To 153 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Reopening Of The Case Is Bad In Law & Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing The Impugned Assessment Being Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Void Ab Initio.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years 2002-03 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/s. Shiva Rubber Industries, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon. Hari Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon. PAN: AAEFS 7721G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(s) by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon, vide order dated 11.02.2015 for the asses…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

M/S. Krish Fragrance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5783/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 M/S Krish Fragrance (P) Ltd., Income Tax Officer, A-703, Happy Home Vs. Ward 5(3), Delhi Apartments, (Now Ward 14(4), Delhi Sector-7, Udaipur, Dwarka, New Delhi (Pan:Aacck4867E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Sumit LalFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S KRISH FRAGRANCE (P) LTD., INCOME TAX OFFICER, A-703, HAPPY HOME VS. WARD 5(3), DELHI APARTMENTS, (NOW WARD 14(4), DELHI SECTOR-7, UDAIPUR, DWARKA, NEW DELHI (PAN:AACCK4867E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advs. Department by : Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 5/9/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Delhi on the following grounds…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sarvodaya Realtors, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue and cross objections filed by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 stand dismissed

ITA 872/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…oint Commissioner to be reached. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghansyam K. Khabarani vs. CIT, reported in 346 ITR 443 and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPL Siddhant Ltd., reported in 345 ITR 223. Page 6 of 11 Sarvodaya Realtors Vs DCIT(AY 1998-99, 1999-00) 10. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records and decision relied upon by Ld.AR. Before us, it has been contended by Ld. AR, that notice dated 24.03.2005 has been issued beyond a period of 4 years and therefore, satisfaction should have been recorded…

M/S. Raj Metal Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2842/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…, sanction from the competent authority, was obtained by the AO from a wrong authority, the proceedings flowing therefrom and the consequential order passed cannot be sustained. 8. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT VS. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del) dealt with almost similar situation. The AO in that case sought approval of Commissioner only as against the required sanction from the JCIT. The Hon’ble High Court held that it could not be said that the Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner had granted the approval and accordingly set aside the notice and the consequential assessmen…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Smt. Nandini Singla, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2007-08 Ito, Nandini Singla, Ward-2, Vs. Ma Gayatri Complex, Rohtak. Model Town, Rohtak. Pan: Argps1919K Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ito, Vs. Lalit Singla, Ward-2, Maa Gayatri Complex, Rohtak. Model Town, Rohtak. Pan: Angps6806B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Department By : Shri Anil Sharma, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 292B

…f notice on 29.3.2014. As the AO in the instant case obtained sanction from the CIT and not the JCIT, it did not confer a valid jurisdiction to him to proceed with the assessment. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT VS. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del) dealt with almost similar situation as is prevailing before me. The AO in that case sought approval of Commissioner only. The Hon’ble High Court held that it could not be said that the Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner had granted the approval and accordingly set aside the notice and the consequential assessment. 6. Section 292…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…2010 in ITA No.744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 6. Harvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del. ITAT) 7. Dr. Nalini Mahajan vs. DIT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) 8. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 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 the…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4497/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Nirmal Handloom House (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 804/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2006-07 Nirmal Handloom House (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 18(3) ¾, Furniture Block New Delhi Kirti Nagar New Delhi 110 015 Pan: Aaacn 06781 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Udaibir Singh Kochar, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Udaibir Singh Kochar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 15(2)Section 151Section 292B

…/s 148 of the Act was issued, as per the provisions of S.151(2) of the Act, the competent authority to grant sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act was JCIT and not CIT. 3. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Sidhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) has held as follows. “Held, that under section 151 of the Act, it was only the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, who could grant the approval for issue of notice under section 148. The approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner. Instead, it was taken from the Commissioner of Income Tax. This was not an irregularity c…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mirabelle International, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2213/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2001-02 Acit, Circle-31(1), M/S Mirabelle International New Delhi Vs. 13/14, Windsor Mansion, Room No. 1405, 15Th Floor, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001 Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, (Pan: Aabfm1743P) Civic Centre, New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2Section 2(16)Section 292BSection 80H

…nsideration of above, submissions, contentions and material placed on record, I observe that admittedly, there was an order u/s. 143(3) during the original assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. In the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed and held as under:- 6. It is relevant to point out that sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 151 of the Act are two independent provisions. The definition of Joint Commissioner is contained in section 2(28C) and the definition of Commissioner given in section 2(16), which are as under:…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stellar Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5122/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Vs. M/S. Stellar Capital Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacs3356A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…nted by the Commissioner of Income Tax as against the approval required from Joint Commissioner of the Income Tax as per law. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (345 ITR 223) (Delhi). The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute are reproduced as under: “There is no statutory provision here under which a power to be exercised by an officer can be exercised by a superior officer. When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…gainst the column in which his designation is mentioned, without mentioning anything. Thus in our view, these arguments of the Ld.D.R. that the Ld.CIT has applied his mind by merely signing is devoid of merit. 20.3. In the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Sidhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Del) it is observed at page 227 as follows: “It is trite that when a statute requires, a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and the Court would not except its being done in some other manner. It was so held in the following decisions : 11 (i) CIT vs. Naveen Khanna (dt. Nov.18,2009 in ITA 21/Del/2009; (…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITO WD 4(4), Thane vs. Vidyavardhini Trust, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3840/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…gs in the assessment order, the AO clearly did not assume any jurisdiction to levy the penalty with respect to this issue. For this legal proposition, we derive support from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. ‘SPL’s Sidhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223, wherein it has been held that 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 satisfact…

ITO WD 4(4), Thane vs. Vidyavardhini Trust, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3839/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

M/S. Limelight Towers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 Limelight Towers (P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, F-8, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacl2094C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Wrong, Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Should Have Allowed The Appeal As The Assessment Completed U/S 147 On The Basis Of Reopening By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Was Wrong & Bad Both In Law & On Facts. 3. That Both Cit (Appeals) & Assessing Officer Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs 10,50,000/-In Total Income Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of I.T Act 1961 In Respect To The Following Shareholders: I. Pista Devi , C-277/3 Gali No 13 Bhajan Pura, Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr DR

Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sh. Vipin Kumar Khanna( supra). In the said decisions, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SPL’s Siddartha Ltd., reported in 345 ITR 223(Delhi). The relevant paras of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal are reproduced as under : “3.1 The assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.3.2011, on the ground that the approval contemplated u/s.151(2) was not complied with. He argued that from the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Tarun International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5136/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 5136/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Tarun International Ltd., Tax, Circle-16(1), 5037, Excelsior Cinema, New Delhi Street Sirikiwalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact2713N Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…nd the permission before issuing the notice was not obtained from the prescribed/competent authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee quashed the assessment by observing at page nos. 6 to 8 of the impugned order as under: “I have called for the record and verified. The AO has obtained the approval of CIT. The following are the relevant columns in the report submitted to the CIT: ITA Nos. 5136/Del/2012 4 Tar…