CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. 233 CTR (DEL.) 69 DIT v. MRS. RAINEE S1NGH 125 TTJ (DEL) 816 (AFFIRMED BY HIGH COURT

VIJAYSHREE FOOD PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

…iction is bad in law:- i. CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319( P&H) ii. Pr. CIT Vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312(Del) iii. Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265;(Del) iv. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548.(Bom) v. CIT Vs Rainee Singh 330 ITR 417(Del) vi. VSR Enterprises- ITA No 1856/Del/2016- dated 17.02.2021. vii. Shri Natrajan Monie- ITA NO 1817/Del/2017- dated-07.12.2020. viii. SJM international in ITA No-3762/Del/2018 dated 09.08.2021 8.7 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the expression “reason” means cause or justification. It has to be based upon some materia…

DR. KAMAL KANT PANDEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

…py of the reasons to belief recorded by the Assessing Officer has been made available. The Learned AR placed reliance on the Page 5 of 8 following decisions: i) Signature Hotel - 338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Sarthak Security -329 ITR 110 (Del.); iii) Ranee Singh - 330 ITR 417 (Del.):” 6. The brief facts of the case and the conclusive part are reproduced here in below with the said case:- “On having gone through the decisions cited above especially the decision of Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (supra), we find that in that case as in the present case before us, reassessment was initiated on t…

M/S. MISSION VIEJO AGRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…o be deleted. SMT. MEERA KAPOOR VS. C1T (ITA NO. 1395/2008) DECIDED VIDE ORDER DTD. 31.08.2012 (DELHI HIGH COURT) CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. 233 CTR (DEL.) 69 DIT VS. MRS. RAINEE S1NGH 125 TTJ (DEL) 816 (AFFIRMED BY HIGH COURT IN (2009) 30 DTR (DEL) 105 /330 ITR 417 (DEL.) THIRD, that AO had relied only on the basis of information, statements and documents received from third party, i.e. Jain brother's, investigation proceedings. Further AO had relied on some backside of page 13 in annexure A - 34 from Jain brother documents. The third party statements and the documents seized from their possession, which we…

M/S. MAHAVIR CONCAST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant

…ncome-tax Act, 1961 notice u/s. 148 is being issued.” 7. In support of the above submission, the Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: 8 i) Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2011) - 338 ITR 51 (Del.) ii) CIT vs. Rainee Singh (2011) - 330 ITR 417 (Del.) iii) Rawatmal Harakchand Vs. CIT - 129 ITR 346 (Cal.) 8. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with the submission that in the reasons recorded, name of the assessee as beneficiary from the entry provider has been specifically mentioned and the reasons have been recorded by the Asse…

SH. RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Rajat Shubra Chatterji, Vs. Acit, C-502, Npsc Housing Society, Circle 37(1), Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aarpc5101F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pc Yadav,Adv. Department By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds:

…book where copy of the reasons to belief recorded by the Assessing Officer has been made available. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Signature Hotel – 338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Sarthak Security -329 ITR 110 (Del.); iii) Ranee Singh – 330 ITR 417 (Del.); 5. The Learned AR submitted further that the reasons recorded are neither signed nor is there any date on which these were recorded. He 6 contended that the action taken by the Assessing Officer under sec. 147 is also not tenable for the simple reason that provisions of sec. 153C of the Act are applicable in this case and not the provis…