Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38High Court2009#349 most cited

What is Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

248

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT · 308 ITR 38 · reassessment proceedings · section 147 · section 148 · section 149 · service of reasons · limitation period · mere change of opinion · full and true disclosure · escapement of income · Kelvinator

Also reported as

175 Taxmann 262

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 139Section 68Section 142(1)Section 151Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessmentsection 147(a)first proviso to section 147beyond four yearsfull and true disclosurekelvinatormere change of opinionlive linkchange of opinionescapement of incomereason to believetangible material

Judgments citing Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7429/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-7427/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2010-11) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No:AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7428/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No: AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7429/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7428/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-7427/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2010-11) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No:AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7428/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No: AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7429/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-7427/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2010-11) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No:AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7428/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o SRS Mall, 3rd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-II Sector-12, Faridabad Faridabad PAN No: AAACN5131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-7429/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) BTL Holding Co. Ltd. DCIT C/o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 556/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: The DCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erms of the ratio of the following judgments: a) Dulichand Singhania Vs. ACIT 269 ITR 192. b) Winsome Textile Industries Vs. Union of India 278 ITR 470. c) Navkar share and stock brokers Vs. ACIT 390 ITR 362 & d) Haryana Acrylics Manufacturing company Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 ii) That it is relevant to point out that after initiation of the reassessment proceedings, a notice was issued U/s 142(1) was issued on 4th July, 2018 asking the undersigned to provided information and copies of accounts of i) Rohit Trading Company 2) Mahalakshmi and others. The assessee furnished all information on 11th September, 2018 alongwith…

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erms of the ratio of the following judgments: a) Dulichand Singhania Vs. ACIT 269 ITR 192. b) Winsome Textile Industries Vs. Union of India 278 ITR 470. c) Navkar share and stock brokers Vs. ACIT 390 ITR 362 & d) Haryana Acrylics Manufacturing company Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 ii) That it is relevant to point out that after initiation of the reassessment proceedings, a notice was issued U/s 142(1) was issued on 4th July, 2018 asking the undersigned to provided information and copies of accounts of i) Rohit Trading Company 2) Mahalakshmi and others. The assessee furnished all information on 11th September, 2018 alongwith…

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

…n'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft India Ltd vs /TO 259 ITR 19 (SC) and decisions of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT 398 ITR 198 (Del) and M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr 308 ITR 38 (Del.) and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 Court in the case of M/s Allana Cold Storage Ltd vs ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) . Further reliance is also placed in the decisions cited hereunder: • PCIT v Jagat Talkies Distributors [2017] 85 taxmann.com 189(Delhi); • PCIT v V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 taxmann.com 201 (Kar) approved in…

ACIT, Corporate Corporate Circle -1 (1), Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mentioned by Ld. A.O. in the reason recorded and there is no such failure, reassessment done after four years from the end of the year is bad in view of the following judicial decisions:- Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 308 ITR 38 (Del) (CLC 75-98). "Reassessment-Full and true disclosure-Notice after expiry of four years- Once the exception carved out by proviso to s. 147 comes into play, the case would fall outside the ambit of s. 147-As per proviso to s. 147, n0 action under this section can be taken after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year,…

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Badal Prakash Jindal (HUF) and Ors reported in [2023] 457 ITR 345 (Orissa), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Page 16 of 17 Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) had held that when the reasons supplied to the assessee and the reasons supplied before the higher forum is not verbatim same, it cannot sustain the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and consequently the reassessment order was quashed. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Badal Prakash Jindal…

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 770/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years : 2010-11 Kalindee Estates Private Ltd., C4 Silver Oak, SJS Highway Banipark, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 3399 J अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue…

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…he objections on an unacceptable pretext that the appellant had not filed complete copy of ITR etc. In this connection, I wish to place reliance upon order of Hon'ble Delhi High 6.3.2 Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, reported as 308 ITR 38 IT A No.l497/Del/2018 AC IT vs. Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 (Delhi), date of order 03.11.2008. Para 8 of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereunder: ”8. The requirement of supplying reasons for initiating proceedings under section 14" and the requirement of passing a speaking order on objections to such reasons has been spelt out b…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, SME Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. PAN: AABCS3480N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for : Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R. Date of Hearing : 10 . 07 . 2024 Date of Pronounce…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…17] 398 ITR 177 (Del) - PCIT vs. Headstrong Services [2021] 278 Taxman 224 (Del) - ACIT vs. Mon Mohan Kohli [2022] 441 ITR 207 (Del) Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del)on the proposition that steps/ procedure prescribed laid down must be strictly followed; any deviation would be fatal to validity of proceedings/ order [para 23 of judgement]. (c) Moreover, it is submitted that the scheme of Act requires completion of entire mandatory procedure/ proceedings within prescribed time limit. In simple words, the p…

Punrasar Jute Park Limited, Purnea vs. CIT, Purnea

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 432/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Punrasar Jute Park Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 432/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Punrasar Jute Park Limited,………..….……Appellant Maranga Industrial Growth Centre, Purnea, Maranga-854301, Bihar [PAN:AAFCP0513P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Income Tax Office, Near jail Chowk, NH-31, Purnea, Bihar-854301 Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate and Mita Riz…

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 702/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke M/s Padmavati Agrico (India) ACIT Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Circle-01, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCP 0965 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), 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

…erman 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 submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), 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

…erman 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 submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), 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

…erman 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 submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on…

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…TR 566 (SC) 2. Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del.) 3. CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465 (Del.) 4. Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT: 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) 5. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: 232 CTR 260 (Del.) 6. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: 308 ITR 38 (Del.) 7. German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT: 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) 8. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT: 268 ITR 339 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO: 208 ITR 509 (Cal.) 11. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. v. DCIT: 210 ITR 991 (Cal.) 12. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 216 ITR 371…

Saraswati Garewal, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur

In the result ground no. 1 of the assessee in terms of our aforesaid observations is allowed

ITA 166/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Saraswati Garewal, V Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), C/O Shivbhajan, Vill: Pendridih, S Bilaspur Post: Hirri Mines, Bilaspur – 495222, (C.G.) Pan: Bizpg5287R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of : 13/10/2023 Hearing घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 25/10/2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ort of the contention that the assessee, Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Wimco Seedlings Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in (2020) 82 ITR (Trib) 0234 Delhi, wherein, coordinate bench of the ITAT relying on judgment in the case of Haryana Acrylic (308 ITR 38) has observed that when the complete reasons were not provided within reasonable time the re-assessment proceedings are held to be invalid. 6. Ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate ‘SMC’ bench of ITAT Raipur, in the case of Gajraj Giri vs. I. T. Officer, in 5 I.T.A. No.166/RPR/2022 ITA NO. 222/RPR/2023 dated 06/09/2023, w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 43/DDN/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80Section 80I

…o section 147 of the Act, the re- assessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported in 357 ITR 24 ( Delhi). 10. We find that the ld AO had adjudicated the reasons recorded for both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act in a single reassessment order and completely denied the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, for the first notice u/s 148 dated 17.08.2010, neither the same…