How many judgments cite German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (287 ITR 494), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 151, Section 153C, Section 142(1).

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 151 Section 153C Section 142(1)Section 69C Section 10AA

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 147(a)section 147(b)bogus share capital beyond four years full and true disclosure first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment fresh tangible material mere change of opinion sanctioning authority initial assessment year

Judgments citing German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Co. P. Ltd.(Before Amalgamation M/S. Stellar Credit& E-Trading P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ts namely; > CIT vs Kelvinator of India (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC) > Aventies Pharma Ltd vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom- HC) > Jashan Textile Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 542/[2007] 164 Taxman 243 (Bom). > German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 494/152 Taxman 269 (Bom) > CIT vs. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) > Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) > CIT vs Purolator India Ltd ITA No. 489 of 2011 (Delhi HC) 13. Similarly, the reopening has been made after a period of four year from the end of assessment year and in order to reopen the assessment under section 1…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…e on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts is in contravention to fist proviso to 147 of the Act and therefore bad in law. The ld AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies v. DCIT [287 ITR 494 (Bom)] wherein it has been held that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years without any failure on the part of the assesse to disclose material facts is incorrect. 7. The ld DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments put forward by the ld AR by submitting that the assesse was involved in cyclical transactions in the various group compan…

Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…st the provisions of the Act. The ld. AR in defence of the arguments relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jashan Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 542 (Bom) and German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 494 (Bom). Arguing on the second reason recorded by the AO for re-opening the assessment qua violation of section 50C of the Act in respect of land sold by the assesse, the ld. AR argued that the assessment can not be re-opened on that basis by relying on the decision of Balasubramanium Mills Ltd. (in ITA No.1379/Mad/2015), wherein it has been held t…

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…roved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). iv. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) v. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); vi. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); vii. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del)"; viii. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); 26. He further submitted that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is clearly applicable as first assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was already made on 31st December 2009 an…

Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 59/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADVPA 6150 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

…e., the copy of valuation report, was held to be invalid for the purpose of making any addition in the hands of the buyer by the CIT(A) and hence the reasons to believe ceased to exist in case of the assessee. In the case of Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom) it was held that: “Once it is clear that the basis and foundation for the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment ceased to exist, the jurisdictional condition precedent to exercise of power to reopen the assessment was not fulfilled. The impugned notice and order are quashed.” Henceforth, in view to the above…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

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

…e. The ld AR submitted that the Pr CIT has not even bothered to appreciate the facts of the case correctly whicn amounts to abuse of authority. In defence of his arguments the counsel of the assessee relies on the following decisions – - German Remedies Ltd – 287 ITR 494 (Bom) - Suman Waman Chaudhary – 321 ITR 495 (Bom) - S. Goyanka Lines & Chemicals Ltd – 237 Taxman 378 (SC) - My Car (Pune) (P) Ltd – 263 Taxman 626 (Bom) - United Electrical Company (P) Ltd – 258 ITR 317 (Del) - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd – 372 ITR 421 (Cal) - Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd – 400 ITR 397 (Chhattisgarh) - Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt Lt…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

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

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

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

Twin Earth Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT RG 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6604/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Twin Earth Dy.Cit, Securities P. Ltd., Range - 4(2)(1), 301/302 Prime Plaza, Room No.642, Vs. 38-A, S.V. Road, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 054 M.K. Road, Pan: Aabct3066F Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54ESection 88E

…of the original assessment proceedings. The notice dated 26.03.2015 is void ab initio in the light of the first proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. In defence of his arguments, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions: i. German Remedies Ltd vs DCIT- [2006] 287 ITR 494 (Bombay)- ii. RajbhushanOmprakash Dixit vs DCIT-(WP No: 3546 of 2018) - Bombay High Court. 9. The ld. AR argued that the Ld.AO initiated the reassessment proceedings based on change of opinion since all the documents were duly submitted to the Ld. AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and after considering the same, a deduction…

Johnson & Johnson Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 4912/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…ned by CIT clearly indicate that it is without judicious application of mind and in contravention to the proviso to section 147 of the Act. To buttress his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT, 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) (2) My Car (Pune) (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 263 Taxman 626 (Bom.) (3) Sesa Sterlite Ltd. vs. ACIT, 417 ITR 334 (Bom.) 3.3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that assessment for assessment year 2004-05 has been reopened for the reason that excess provision for royalty has been created in the books of accounts for financi…

Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7243/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 RMP Holding (P) Ltd., Vs ITO, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACR5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th Aug…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…rolator India Ltd. 343 ITR 155 (Del) 62. Motor & General Fiance, 184 Taxman 465 (Del) 63. Titanor Components Ltd. 343 ITR 183 (Bom) 64. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd, 3\232 CTR 260 (Del) 65. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, 308 ITR 38 (Del) 66. German Remedies Ltd. 287 ITR 494 (Bom) 67. Grindwell Norton , 267 ITR 673 (Bom) 68. Pe/co Lectronics & Electricals Ltd, 210 ITR 991 (Cal) 69. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 216 ITR 317 (Guj) 70. Garden Silk Mills Ltd, 222 ITR 27 (Guj) 71. Veer Overseas Ltd, ITA No. 510 of 2009 (P & H) 72. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 73. Dulli Chand Singhania, 269 IT…

Aries Agro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…015) 370 ITR 135 [(Bom)] 5. Sound Casting (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom.)] 6. Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.)] 7. Titanor Components Limited vs. ACIT [(2011) 60 DTR 273 (Bom.)] 8. German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)] 9. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B.Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has brought out clear facts to the extent that the AO has formed reasonable belief of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T.Act,1961 and a…

Smt. Harshidaben M. Pobaru, Jamnagar vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar

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

ITA 371/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Smt. Harshidaben M. Pobaru, Circle-1, Vs. “Gokul’’, Park Colony, Jamnagar. Jamnagar-361008. Pan: Acmpp9140J

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…gible material before the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income had escaped assessment and therefore, reopening of assessment under section 147 was not valid. We rely upon following judicial precedents a. Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) b. Dempo Brothers Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom) (HC) c. Golden Tobacco Limited v. DCI [2017] 48 ITR (T) 132(Mum.)(Trib.) d. DIT v. Rolls Royal Industries Power India Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 547 (Delhi)(HC) e. ACIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 123 (Mum.) (Trib.) f. Mahandi Coalfileds Ltd ITA No. 300/CTK/2014 (Page no. 4 to…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…th suggested that the decision was taken by the Board in a mechanical manner as such, the same was not a sufficient compliance under section 151 of the Act. iii. Union of India v. M.L. Capoor and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 87 iv. German Remedies Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom). v. ITO v. Direct Sales (P) Ltd. ITAT (Delhi) [2015]: Merely stating “Approved” is not sufficient sanction of CIT and renders reopening void. Commissioner has to apply mind and due diligence before according sanction to the reasons recorded by the AO. vi. ShriAmarlal Bajaj Vs.The ACIT (I.T.A. No.611/Mum/2004 dated 24.07.2013): Commissioner…

Raghav Technology P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1144/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Raghav Technology P. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas, Ward-20(4), L-7A (Lgf), South Extension Part 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcr5922J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…authority for issuing notice u/s 147 or 148, reassessment proceedings are not valid. In this case also the approval u/s 151 was given as ‘approved.’ Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom), he submitted that while granting approval, the CIT was required to verify whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true relevant facts in the return and to consider whether or not power to reopen is being invoked within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. When none of…

Ambey Construction Company, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

…ormed on the basis of the reason recorded and hence reopening is bad in view of the following decisions: " Shipra Srivastava & Anr Vs ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Delhi) ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 9 Ambey Construction Company " Balkrishna Hiralal Wani Vs ITI (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 0677 (Delhi) " Pr. CIT Vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 0005 (Delhi) " Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2015) 384 ITR 0147 (Delhi) " Northern Exim (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 357 ITR 586 (Delhi) 10. Alternatively, without prejudice to the above submissions, the AR of the assess…

Shri Shivram Ramchanddas Patel, Unjha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 860/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131Section 144

…the same day, as the date on which reopening proposal was sent, by simply observing “Yes, I am satisfied”. He urges me to consider this legal plea first, and relies upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of German Remedies Ltd Vs. DCIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)] which is claimed to cover the issue in favour of the assessee. 4. Having heard the parties and having perused the material on record, I am not inclined to uphold the objections of the assessee on merits. The mere fact that the approval was granted by the CIT on the same day does not necessarily mean that the approval is granted in a mecha…