DCIT v. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd.

123 ITD 568Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#9557 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

protective assessment escapement of income reason to believe section 148 section 147 person company section 14 nfac

Judgments citing DCIT v. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd.

KESHNATH SAHU, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

ITA 135/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshnath Sahu Shri Balaji Construction Company, Near Power House, Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari (C.G)-493 773 Pan : Cqips0706B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…1 (Bom) and that of Pavan Morarka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2022) 325 CTR 377 (Bom.). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of DCIT Vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2010) 123 ITD 568 (Bang.). On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and initiated proceedings 7 Keshnath Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee, therefore, the said impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of juri…

SHRI SHANTILALYADAV,KHARGONE vs. THE ITO , KHATGONE

ITA 399/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Shantilal Yadav Ito, Khargone Gram Nagziri, बनाम/ Tehsil Gogawa, Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aiwpy 0915 C Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…protective addition and, therefore, the entire assessment made by Ld. AO is illegal and vitiated. To support this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon following decisions: Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore in DCIT Vs. Bullion Investment & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2010) 123 ITD 568 (Bangalore): “2.5 We have heard both the parties. The fact of undisclosed investment in the share capital of the assessee- company was found during the course of search and material was collected during the course of search that such investment belonged to Shri G.P. Goyal If such income was to be assessed in the hands of a person other than Shri…

SHRIAMIT AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), INDORE

ITA 212/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Amit Agrawal Ito, Ward-1(3) बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abrpa 2105 L Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…essment made by Ld. AO is Page 3 of 8 Amit Agrawal Assessment year 2009-10 illegal and vitiated. To support this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon following decisions: Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore in DCIT Vs. Bullion Investment & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2010) 123 ITD 568 (Bangalore): “2.5 We have heard both the parties. The fact of undisclosed investment in the share capital of the assessee- company was found during the course of search and material was collected during the course of search that such investment belonged to Shri G.P. Goyal If such income was to be assessed in the hands of a person other than Shri…

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 115/JODH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainsh. Prakash Chandra Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer 67-68, Hiran Magri, Sector Ward 1(1), Udaipur No. 08, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpj 3696 E

Section 147Section 148

…pose of making protective addition. The question as to whether reopening of assessment for making protective addition is valid or not was examined by the Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services P Ltd (2010)(123 ITD 568)(Blore). In this case, undisclosed investment in the share capital of the above said company was assessed in the hands of one Shri G.P Goyal on the basis of material found during the course of search. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened in the hands of the above said company to make addition on protective basis. The Ld CIT(A) quashed the reas…

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the direction issued by the CIT(A) is bad in law. In this respect, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: a. KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [101 taxmann.com 19 (Mum)] (ABP 730-738). b. DCIT v. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [123 ITD 568 (Bang)] (ABP 739-745). (III) The direction given by the CIT(A) is barred by limitation as per section 150 of the Act. 79. It has been averred that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 27.11.2018 and the Assessing Officer could issue notice under section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 only upto ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 41 of 46 31.…

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

…ether assessee was having income which escaped assessment in all these assessment years. ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 55 of 64 In similar circumstances, the Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd. [2010] 123 ITD 568 held as under:- “The fact of undisclosed investment in the share capital of the assessee-company was found during the course of search and material was collected during the course of search that such investment belonged to 'G'. If such income was to be assessed in the hands. of a person other than 'G'; then the revenue should have taken recourse…

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

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

…ive basis in AY 2002- 03 which clearly shows that he was not sure as to whether assessee was having income which escaped assessment. In similar circumstances, the Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd. [2010] 123 ITD 568 held as under:- “The fact of undisclosed investment in the share capital of the assessee-company was found during the course of search and material was collected during the course of search that such investment belonged to 'G'. If such income was to be assessed in the hands. of a person other than 'G'; then the revenue should have taken recours…

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

DY. C.I.T. - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPTI DATTARAJ SALGAONKAR, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7403/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, D.R

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

…other hands which has been accepted by the revenue but it should have been assessed in the hands of the assessee. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on a series of decisions namely:- a)DCIT Vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services (P) Ltd (2010) 123 ITD 568(Bang) b)M.P.Ramachandran Vs. DCIT(2010) 129 TTJ (Mumbai) 190 c) KIIC Investment Company Vs DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai-Tri) 13. The D.R. on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of authorities below. The ld DR submitted that the re-opening was done on the basis of specific information from Govt. of Frace under DTAA that assess…

NARESH JAGDISHRAI GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO(IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJITSINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.634/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal, 72, Vs. ITO(International Jupiter Apartments, Anstey Taxation), Range-3(1), Road, Off. Altamount Road, Scindia House, Ballard Mumbai-400026 Estate, Mumbai-400038 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACPG 9641 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sumit K…