German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

287 ITR 494High Court2006#1275 most cited

What is German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are not justified when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, supported by statutory and tax audit reports, even if a different view could be taken on the valuation of closing stock. Such reopening constitutes a mere change of opinion.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT · 287 ITR 494 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment beyond four years · full and true disclosure · mere change of opinion · first proviso to Section 147 · material facts · valuation of closing stock

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 142(1)Section 69CSection 10AA

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 147(a)section 147(b)bogus share capitalbeyond four yearsfull and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionsanctioning authorityinitial assessment year

Judgments citing German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

ITA 86/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…time of original assessment, invoking the provisions of Sec. 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year is not valid. There had not been any failure of the part of the appellant company. a. German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bombay) (IIC). b. CIT v Former France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). c. Tata Business Support Services Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2015) (Bombay) (HC). d. Nirmal Band Securities (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bombay) (HC). e. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Тахтап 367 (Gujarat) (HC) (SLP of revenue is dismissed, Pandesara Infrastructure…

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur vs. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

The Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted

ITA/12/2024HC Uttarakhand17 Dec 2025

Bench: This Court Being Aggrieved By The Judgment & Order Dated 08.02.2024, Whereby The Appellate Tribunal Was Pleased To Allow The Appeal Of The Respondent. 3.

For Appellant: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
Section 133ASection 151

…ectric Supply Co. Ltd vs. ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.): 51 DTR 51 (Del.) B. CIT having mechanically granted approval for reopening of assessment without application of mind, the same is invalid and not sustainable.-[German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.)] C. Power granted u/s 151 cannot be exercised casually:- United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) D. CIT vs. Goyanka Lime 237 Taxman 378 (SC) CIT vs. N.C. Cables-98 CCH 18 (Del) E. Chuga Mal Rajpal- 79 ITR 603 (SC) Larger Bench.” 13. Per contra, the Revenue contended that the approval granted is in a…

VAMA INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all the materials was placed by the petitioner before him.In this regard reliance is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) wherein it has been held that where the assessee has disclosed all the relevant facts supported by statutory audit as well as tax audit reports, the mere fact that valuation of closing stock may have to be different would not justify a reassessment notice after four years. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON vs. ANIL KUMAR, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G CO No. 88/Del/2024 (ITA No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of pro…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…IT. reported in 237 Taxman 378 vii) 218 ITR 730 (MP) CIT v. Man Mohan Das viii) 400 ITR 397 (Chattisgarh) Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. vs. ACIT ix) 267 ITR 716 (P&H) Mohinder Singh Malik vs. CCIT ix) 128 ITR 326 (Cal) East Cost Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO x) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT xi) (1994 Tax L.R. 468) Cal Kamala Properties v. ACIT 24 In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that penalty upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed.” 4.1. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below levying p…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…f the Act. 11. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs, Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 Supreme Court Of India (ii) Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 High Court of Bombay (iii) Balkrishna Hiralal wani v. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 High Court of Bombay (iv) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 275 High Court Bombay (v) Praveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 High Court of Bombay (vi) Purity Teachtextile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 High Court of Bombay (vii) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. V.ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 High Court of Delhi (viii) CIT v. Keane I…

INTERGRATOR CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

…by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard we placed reliance\nupon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of\nIndian Oil Corporation v. ITO (159 ITR 956) (SC), decision of\nHon'ble Judicature of Bombay High Court in the matter of\nBalakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bom), decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITO vs. Lakshmi Mewal\nDas (103 ITR 437)(SC).\n12. Even on the merits of the additions are concern, we noticed\nfrom the records that assessee company had made purchase and\nsale of the options with regard to various scrips, which have been\nmade through duly registered broker of SEBI nam…

SRI PREM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

…erence to Reason recorded alone and this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Northern Exim (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2013) 357 ITR 586(Del.) (ii) Shipra Srivastava &Anr. vs. ACIT, (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Del.) 7 Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO, (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) Further he submitted that there is no material having any nexus much less live nexus based on which belief of escapement of income has been made. He further relied on the pages 102-108 of the paper book which is the written submissions made before ld. CIT(A). He submitted that Information of forfeiture of earnest money is there on the fac…

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…f reasoning by which he\nholds the reason to believe that the Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment\nfor the relevant assessment year. The material relied upon by the assessing officer\nshould appear on the record.\n12.20 Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bom)\nNotice based on suspicion and surrnise - Notice is not valid. The requirement of law is\n\"reason to believe\" and not reason to \"suspect\".\n12.21 The decision dated 23.11.2016 by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of\nM/s Coronation Agro Industries Ltd Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-6(2)(1) [in W.P. No 2627 of\n2016] where in the Hon'ble…

ANNU ANIL AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…ements: a. Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bombay High Court)] b. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bombay High Court)] с. CIT v. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 [(Bombay High Court) d. Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bombay High Court) P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2011-12 Annu Anil Agrawal 16. Therefore, in the view of the above facts and circumstances, the ground Nos. 1 & 2 stands allowed, and notice under 148 of the Act stands quashed. 17. Ground No. 3: This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in upholding the order of the AO on t…

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

…essment was not valid. We may record that this was also a case where the return filed was accepted under s. 143(1) of the Act without any scrutiny. (b) In case of Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO & Ors. (2010) 230 CTR (Bom) 243: (2010) 36 DTR (Bom) 161: (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom), wherein a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, also in relation to reopening of assessment which was previously accepted without scrutiny, quashed the notice on the premise that the AO could not have any reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt…

SNS CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G CO No. 88/Del/2024 (ITA No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of pro…

AMIT KHATRI,SONIPAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, SONIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…3 (SC). d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 22 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); VI. Assumption of jurisdiction based on invalid issue of notice u/s 148: From perusal of notice u/s 148 (PB 14), it can be seen that notice u/s 148 has been issued in the name of the artificial jur…

SKY BLUE INFOTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 438/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.438/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Sky Blue Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Vs. Ward-23(4), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, Room No.246, C.R. Bldg., New Delhi. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aalcs1584K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

…l/2020 d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 22 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); VI. Assumption of jurisdiction based on invalid issue of notice u/s 148: From perusal of notice u/s 148 (PB 14), it can be seen that notice u/s 148 has been issued in the name of the artificial jur…

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…ITR 192, (ii) Urban Homes Realty Vs. Union of India 459 ITR 95 (iii) Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 459 ITR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submission…

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…ITR 192, (ii) Urban Homes Realty Vs. Union of India 459 ITR 95 (iii) Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 459 ITR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submission…

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…ITR 192, (ii) Urban Homes Realty Vs. Union of India 459 ITR 95 (iii) Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 459 ITR 16 (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone 458 ITR 345 (v) Calcutta Discount Co. ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 192 (SC) (vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submission…

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…dings. The Ld. counsel for assessee relied on following decisions:  Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom)  German Remdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)  Citius Citius Citius Tech Tech Tech Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Tech. Tech. Tech. P P P Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. Vs Vs Vs DCIT DCIT DCIT (155 (155 (155 Taxmann.com 334) (Bom) Taxmann.com 334) (Bom)  Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.) (…

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…dings. The Ld. counsel for assessee relied on following decisions:  Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom)  German Remdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)  Citius Citius Citius Tech Tech Tech Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Tech. Tech. Tech. P P P Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. Vs Vs Vs DCIT DCIT DCIT (155 (155 (155 Taxmann.com 334) (Bom) Taxmann.com 334) (Bom)  Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.) (…

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…dings. The Ld. counsel for assessee relied on following decisions:  Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom) Jetair (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (148 Taxmann.com 185)(Bom)  German Remdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom) mdeis Ltd vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)  Citius Citius Citius Tech Tech Tech Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Tech. Tech. Tech. P P P Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. Vs Vs Vs DCIT DCIT DCIT (155 (155 (155 Taxmann.com 334) (Bom) Taxmann.com 334) (Bom)  Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.) (…

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5

German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (287 ITR 494) — Cited in 89 Judgments | BharatTax