CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Shabana Khan, Jabalpur vs. Pr-1, Jabalpur. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…s assessment of incomes other than qua which the reassessment proceedings had been initiated, with the law in the matter having been already sufficiently clarified (V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC); CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)), the Hon‟ble Courts have, as in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), held that the same does not override the necessity of conditions set out in the substantive part of sec. 147. 4.2 We are conscious, we may clarify, that all that is necessary at the stage of the initiation of proceedings, is a honest, prima facie belief, a…

Kadeer Khan, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…s assessment of incomes other than qua which the reassessment proceedings had been initiated, with the law in the matter having been already sufficiently clarified (V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC); CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)), the Hon‟ble Courts have, as in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), held that the same does not override the necessity of conditions set out in the substantive part of sec. 147. 4.2 We are conscious, we may clarify, that all that is necessary at the stage of the initiation of proceedings, is a honest, prima facie belief, a…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited 36. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 36 (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 45 of 150 Limited Versus CIT 37 for the proposition that assessments cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The learned advocate referred to the assessment order in the case of the assessee Suman Kumar which is the subject matter of ITAT No. 128 of 2021 and submitted that the assessment…

Radhakrishna Diamond, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Surat

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 737 & 738/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shetrunjay Diamond, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/H Pp Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abvfs 5315 G Radhakrishna Diamond, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/H Pp Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfr 9268 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Surat-3/10605/2016-17 Dated 31.08.2018, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 737 & 738/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shetrunjay Diamond, Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/h PP Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABVFS 5315 G Radhakrishna Diamond, Vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/h PP Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMFR 9268 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh K.…

Shetrunjay Diamond, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 737 & 738/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shetrunjay Diamond, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/H Pp Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abvfs 5315 G Radhakrishna Diamond, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/H Pp Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfr 9268 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Surat-3/10605/2016-17 Dated 31.08.2018, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 737 & 738/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shetrunjay Diamond, Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/h PP Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABVFS 5315 G Radhakrishna Diamond, Vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Plot No.10, Siddhakutir, B/h PP Surat. Savani Hospital, Kapodara, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMFR 9268 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh K.…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…rable to the assessee should be adopted is not the ratio decidendi in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) but an obiter dictum. Obiter dicta are not binding. Uol v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6SCC 44 p. 96. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (SC) 198 ITR 297. 11. Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law. CIT v.Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477. 12. As submitted by the same DR to the hon'ble bench hearing the appeal against the assessment in these cases (ITA no. 38, 39, 40/CTK/2007), consisting of the same hon'ble AM, the case of the a…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…rable to the assessee should be adopted is not the ratio decidendi in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) but an obiter dictum. Obiter dicta are not binding. Uol v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6SCC 44 p. 96. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (SC) 198 ITR 297. 11. Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law. CIT v.Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477. 12. As submitted by the same DR to the hon'ble bench hearing the appeal against the assessment in these cases (ITA no. 38, 39, 40/CTK/2007), consisting of the same hon'ble AM, the case of the a…