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

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…en that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 71 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…en that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 71 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…en that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 71 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…en that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 71 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 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…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemical Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…en that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 71 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 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…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…l assessment was completed under section 143(3), case cannot be reopened without obtaining the prior approval of PCIT/ CIT, no such approval was obtained by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT (346 ITR 443) Even on merits additions of section 68 of Rs. 2.0 Crore was deleted holding that investment made by TIPL was examined by FTTR & FIPB. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) the revenue has challenged the correctness of his order in deleting the additions. M/s Arshiya International Ltd. 7. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized…

M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd……………....……………....…………………….....Appellant 51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Aalcs 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 156Section 250

…1.03.2015 vide No. Addl. CIT/Range-7/Kol/148/2014-15/3916 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, New Delhi vs. Sh. Aakash Goyal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection are

ITA 5673/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…f Commissioner before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. As against that, the AO actually sought approval of the Addl. CIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, which is patently incorrect. 7. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. CIT & Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom), has held that the powers which are conferred upon a particular authority have to be exercised by that authority and the satisfaction, which the statute mandates of a distinct authority, cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. 5 CO…

M/S. Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

…1.03.2015 vide No. Addl. CIT/Range-7/Kol/148/2014-15/3916 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…

Ashok Baldevbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 of the

ITA 787/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 68

…ssessee filed the copy of statutory provision of section 151 prevailing, during the relevant period. Further to buttress his submissions the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Bombay High Court in case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT & Ors [346 ITR 443], Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [382 ITR 93], Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT & Ors [343 ITR 183],Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [268 ITR 332] and Morarjee Goculdas Spinning And Weaving Co Ltd Vs P.N. Bansal & Another [208 ITR 471], Mumbai Tribunal in Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [ITA No. 1040 & 1041/Mum/2017] da…

The Excutive Board of the Methodist Church in India, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3341/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3341/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Executive Board Of The Methodist Asst. Dit (Exemptions)-1(2), 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Church In India बनाम/ 1, Prospect Chambers, Ground Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. 313, D. N. Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatt 5754 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shankar K. Jalghar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.03.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Ground No. 1 - Re: Reopening Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2005- 06 Is Invalid & The Consequent Re-Assessment Is Illegal:

For Appellant: Shri Shankar K. JalgharFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 50C

…f Income Tax for reopening the assessment was not obtained as mandated by Section 151(2) of the Act. 1.2 The learned C.I.T(A) erred in disregarding the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Glwnshyam Khabrani v ACIT & Others [(2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom)] wherein identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 1.3 Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not appreciating that the A.O. did not observe the right procedure in dealing with the assessee's objections to the reasons recorded for reopening and failed to follow the law and pr…

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vaman International P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1506/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1040 & 1041/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: (2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Vaman International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. 119, 1St Floor, Durian बिधम/ Income Tax-13(3)(2), Industrial Estate, Goregaon Mumbai. Vs. Mulund Link Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcv5464F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…elf the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O were liable to be quashed. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT and Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom). The Ld. A.R while relying on the aforesaid judgment submitted that in the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the A.O as per the mandate of law was required to get sanction for issuing the notice under Sec. 148 from the Joint Commissioner of P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 1040-1042 &1506/Mum/2017 Vaman International & M/s Tangent furniture Vs. DCIT…

Tangent Furniture P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1042/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1040 & 1041/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: (2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Vaman International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. 119, 1St Floor, Durian बिधम/ Income Tax-13(3)(2), Industrial Estate, Goregaon Mumbai. Vs. Mulund Link Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcv5464F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…elf the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O were liable to be quashed. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT and Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom). The Ld. A.R while relying on the aforesaid judgment submitted that in the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the A.O as per the mandate of law was required to get sanction for issuing the notice under Sec. 148 from the Joint Commissioner of P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 1040-1042 &1506/Mum/2017 Vaman International & M/s Tangent furniture Vs. DCIT…

Vaman International P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1040/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1040 & 1041/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: (2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Vaman International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. 119, 1St Floor, Durian बिधम/ Income Tax-13(3)(2), Industrial Estate, Goregaon Mumbai. Vs. Mulund Link Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcv5464F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…elf the entire reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O were liable to be quashed. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT and Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom). The Ld. A.R while relying on the aforesaid judgment submitted that in the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the A.O as per the mandate of law was required to get sanction for issuing the notice under Sec. 148 from the Joint Commissioner of P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 1040-1042 &1506/Mum/2017 Vaman International & M/s Tangent furniture Vs. DCIT…

ITO, WD-39(2), Midnapore vs. G. S. Sharma & Ors., Paschim Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1233/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…the Joint Commissioner. Instead, it was taken from the Commissioner of Income Tax. This was not an irregularity curable under section 292B. The notice was not valid." Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443, wherein it was held as under:- "There is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the requirement of section 151(2) could have only been fulfilled by the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner that this is a fit case for the issuance of a notice under section 148. Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of t…

M/S. Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4520/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 4520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 181-C, Western Avenue, Sainik Ward-12(4), Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0276J Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…nvalid and has rightly quashed the same by allowing the appeal of the Assessee. This view has been supported by the various Hon'ble High Courts decisions which includes Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other Division Bench 346 ITR 443; Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. SPL's Sidharth Limited Division Bench 345 ITR 223 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decision in the case of Anirudhsingh Ji Karan Singh Ji Jedeja versus State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SSC 302. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasone…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sarvodaya Realtors, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue and cross objections filed by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 stand dismissed

ITA 872/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Ld. CIT (A) that issue of notice under section 148 is invalid in the case of assessee. 4. Ld. CIT (A) allowed the legal issue raised by assessee by relying upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabarani vs. CIT reported at 346 ITR 443 and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Page 4 of 11 Sarvodaya Realtors Vs DCIT(AY 1998-99, 1999-00) the case of CIT vs. S.P.L. Siddhant Ltd. reported at 45 ITR 223. 5. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us now. Assessee has filed cross objection supporting order of Ld. CIT (A). 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted…

Cairn Uk Holding Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…P a g e | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1669 /Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Crain U K Holdings V Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax ( International s 50 Lothian Road Taxation) – Circle 1(2)(1) . Edinburgh , Scotland New Delhi EH39BY PAN : AACCC9135H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. Adv Shi P Maheshwari, CA Ms. Aarti Sathe, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT Shri Anuj Arora CIT DR Date of Hearing 19/12/2016 Date of pronouncement 09/03/2017 O…

Sterlite Infra Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 7220/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 7220/Mum/2012,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 M/S Sterlite Infra Ltd. Acit -2(3), बनाम No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillaiyor Aayakar Bhavan, Koli Street, Kanagam, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Tharamani, Chennai-600113 Pan: Aafcs1424A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 7221/Mum/2012,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 M/S Sterlite Infra Ltd. Acit -2(3), बनाम No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillaiyor Aayakar Bhavan, Koli Street, Kanagam, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Tharamani, Chennai-600113 Pan: Aafcs1424A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “b” खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - ‘E’ BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं iou iou iou "संह,"या"यक सद"य iou Before S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No. 7220/Mum/2012,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 M/s Sterlite Infra Ltd. ACIT -2(3), बनाम No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillaiyor Aayakar Bhavan, Koli Street, Kanagam, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Tharamani, Chennai-600113 PAN: AAFCS1424A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No. 7221/Mum/2012,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 M/s Sterlite Infra Ltd. ACIT -2(3), बन…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…CIT 3 SOT 302 (Luk.) 5. Prachi Leathers Ltd. 26L/Luk/2010 in ITA No.744/Luk/2004 order dat. 29.03.2010 6. Harvinder Singh Jaggi vs. ACIT 67 Taxmann.com 109(Del. ITAT) 7. Dr. Nalini Mahajan vs. DIT (Inv.) 257 ITR 123(Del. HC) 8. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom. HC) 9. 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 C…