Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

346 ITR 443High Court2012#1270 most cited

What is Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT authority for?

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT · Section 151 · reassessment validity · approval under Section 151 · sanction for reassessment · designated authority · mechanical approval · invalid reassessment · Section 148 · Chief Commissioner approval

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 716

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 69ASection 115BBESection 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 117section 116real income theorysection 151(2)approval under section 151within four yearssection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 151(ii)kelvinatormere change of opinionchief commissioner

Judgments citing Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5540/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4903/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4901/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5545/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5544/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5543/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 5541/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4902/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4898/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 4897/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…hile arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…e first proviso below section 142(2C). A. Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) Submission All these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these dec…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1849/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…e first proviso below section 142(2C). A. Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) Submission All these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these dec…

Prakash Chand Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5759/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Prakash Chand Jain, Income Tax Officer – Prop. Of M/S. Prachi Ward 2(4), Gems, Thane Shop No.10, Vs. Asmita Bridge Tower, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane - 401107 Pan: Aetpj 5174K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer – Shri Prakash Chand Ward 2(4), Jain, Room No.12, Prop. Of Prachi Gems, 6Th Floor, Shop No.10, Asmita, Vs. Ashar It Park, Bridge Tower, B-Wing, Midc, Nayanagar, Wagle Indl. Estate, Mira Road (E), Thane (W)- 400 604 Thane Pan: Aetpj 5174K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Madhusudan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…d in law for the reasons that the approval has not been obtained from CIT in terms of provisions of section 151(1) of the Act. the Ld. A.R. cited the decisions namely CIT vs. SPL Siddardh Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del.) and Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. CIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom.- HC).The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand (2015) 60 taxmann.com 450 (Gujarat) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that in absence of application of mind in the case of the assessee would not constitute valid reason to believe that income has 8 ITA No.57…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4893/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s Addl. CIT 1 SOT 302 (Luk.); Prachi Leathers Ltd. 26L/Luk/2010 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dt. 29.03.2010 Farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del ITAT); Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC); Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Del. HC) 3.18. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR, with the assistance of Ld. AO, vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld. Senior Counsel and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Com…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4543/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s Addl. CIT 1 SOT 302 (Luk.); Prachi Leathers Ltd. 26L/Luk/2010 in ITA No. 744/Luk/2004 order dt. 29.03.2010 Farvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del ITAT); Dr. Nalini Mahafan vs. OfT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC); Ghansh yam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Del. HC) 3.18. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR, with the assistance of Ld. AO, vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld. Senior Counsel and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Com…

M/S Charam Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkat vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 117(1)Section 120Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 2Section 263

…ed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range – 3 and not by the Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated under the Act. Hence the reopening in question is bad in law as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as follows:- “The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the mandatory requirement of section 151(2) has not been fulfilled. Section 151 requires a sanction to be taken for the issuance of a notice under section 148 in certain cases. In the instant case, an assessment had not been made…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ble Bombay High under the Act. Hence the reopening in question is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High under the Act. Hence the reopening in question is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as follows:- "The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the "The second ground upon which the reopen…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ble Bombay High under the Act. Hence the reopening in question is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High under the Act. Hence the reopening in question is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443, wherein it has been held as follows:- "The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the "The second ground upon which the reopen…

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…owers in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 3.39 Hon‟ble Bombay High court dealt with a similar situation in the case of Ghansham K.Khabrani Vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443 wherein the said assessee raised an issue that requisite sanction prescribed u/s 151 for reopening of an assessment was required to be obtained by the AO from Joint Commissioner of Income tax whereas the same was granted by Commissioner* of Income tax and therefore the same was nullity in the eyes of law. Revenue took a stand mat sanction was gra…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbc World India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5556/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 250Section 92C

…one in that manner or not at all and that all other proceedings are necessarily forbidden. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 52 taxmann.com 336, 17 taxmann.com 138 and the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 346 ITR 443. Therefore, he submitted that the Legislature in its wisdom has empowered only Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner And Joint Commissioner To discharge the functions of the Transfer Pricing Officer and therefore The Additional Commissioner is not permitted to discharge such functions since the such officer has not been included in the defi…