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 367,154 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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4861/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income-tax Officer, vs. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ward 13(12), New Delhi. E-292, IInd Floor, Old Double Storey Lane, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. PAN-AABCJ6528Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. D.C. Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 of…

Bimal Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1005/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Bimal Kumar Singh….........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Arxps 5898 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…essment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act, and the re-opening is beyond the period of four years. For this proposition, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax; [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi), wherein it was held as follows:- “Section 147, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Assessment year 1998-99 - Assessee had filed its return of income declaring nil income - During assessment proceedings, it submitted various details including bank statements, p…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Office who has submitted his report without pointing-out any specific discrepancy. PB-310-317 is order sheet. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Conclusion : AO while making assessment under s. 143(3) having made specific queries with regard to share application money in response to which assessee furnished all relevant documents and after considering this material, AO having completed the assessment, it could not be said that income escaped assessm…

M/S. Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2364/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 39/2068, Naiwala, Ward-16(3), 315, Dakha Chamber, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact5718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th March, 2013 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Organic & Inorganic Chemicals & Provide Services In Various Fields. It Filed Original Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2004 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,520/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 29Th February, 2005. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 148 Of The It Act For Reopening

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…ght to be reopened beyond the period of four years. This Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del). The Court noted that a material change had been brought about to Section 147 of the Act with effect from 1st April 1989 and observed: 12 “29. It is at once seen that the Amendment in Section 147 of the Act brought about a material change in law w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Section 147(a) as it stood prior to 1st April 1989 required the AO to ha…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 630/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Turner Broadcasting System Asia Vs Dcit, Pacific Inc. Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Pricewaterhosue Coopers (P) Ltd., International Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, Taxation, 1St Floor, 11-A, New Delhi. Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct6254F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Fca Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Ar Department By: Shri G.K. Dhall, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 630/Del/2015 Assessment year 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Turner Broadcasting System Asia vs DCIT, Pacific Inc. Circle 3(1)(2), C/o Pricewaterhosue Coopers (P) Ltd., International Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, Taxation, 1st Floor, 11-A, New Delhi. Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. (PAN: AABCT6254F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCA Shri Rishabh Malhotra, AR Department by: Shri G.K. Dhall, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.08…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2291/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.……......…………….…............Appellant Vs. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd......………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower-1, Block-Em Plot No.3 Salt Lake City Sector-V 3Rd Floor Kolkata -91 [Pan : Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H. Chakravorty, Sr. General Manager F & A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 07/09/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07, On The Following Grounds:-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…recorded that there was failure on part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all the material facts required for assessment. When there is no such mention, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Archylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT; 308 ITR 38, has held to be the re-opening to be bad in law. 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd 3.1. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the revenue. 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 9th day of November, 2018. [S.S. Vis…

M/S. Dsc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Dsc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle -15, E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacd0003D ( Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 .10.2018 O R D E R Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10Th November 2014 In Appeal No.97/2014-15 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, New Delhi For Asstt. Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Execution Of Contractual Works Including The Extension Of Widening Of Highways, Construction Of Flyovers, Culverts

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 84 CIT vs. Intercontinental Trading & Investment h) Co. Ltd. 171 Taxman 379 Indian Fertilizer Co-op Ltd. i) j) 303 ITR 155 CIT V Indian Sugar and Gen. Inds Exim Corpn k) 324 ITR 234 DT and TDC Ltd. vs. ACIT 1) 308 ITR 22 Wei Inter-trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO m) 308 ITR 38 Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT 6 n) 343 ITR 141 Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT o) 215 Taxman 441 Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd.vs.ITO p) 354 ITR 24 CIT vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd. q) [2009] 119 ITD 175 (Del) M.M.T.C. Ltd. vs. DCIT r) [2009] 184 TAXMAN 1 (Del) Jal Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. Asst.DIT 9. In this matter, the ori…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Sheila Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 554/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…he assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment. On this ground alone, the re-opening has to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). Further, in the reasons, the Assessing Officer states that, the issue had been considered in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03. While so, the re-opening is done on a change of opinion. This is also bad in law. 6.1. Coming to the case of Shri Nirmalendu Sen, the Assessing Officer, in the reasons recorded, relies o…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmalendu Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 23/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…he assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment. On this ground alone, the re-opening has to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). Further, in the reasons, the Assessing Officer states that, the issue had been considered in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03. While so, the re-opening is done on a change of opinion. This is also bad in law. 6.1. Coming to the case of Shri Nirmalendu Sen, the Assessing Officer, in the reasons recorded, relies o…

ITO Ward-1(1)(2), Agra vs. Mamta Singh, Agra

ITA 155/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

Section 148

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite JALMA Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) PAN :AOBPS 7284 K (Respondent) CO No.36/Agr/2018 (ITA No. 155/Agr/2018) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Mamta Singh, vs. Income Tax Officer, 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Ward-1(1)(2), Agra JALMA Hospital, Agra. PAN : AOBPS 7284 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anil Verma, Advocate Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad…

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2437/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal...…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No.-27 4Th Floor 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan :Adcpa 9872 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata...........................................................……………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Sri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 18Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

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

…bsequent to the issue of the intimation. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred under section 147.” 4.7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anor. reported in [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) has held as follows: “26 Viewed in this light, the proviso to section 147 of the said Act, carves out an exception from the main provisions of section 147. If a case were to fall within the proviso, whether or not it was covered under the main provisions of section 147 of the said Act would not be material. Once the exception carved 4 As…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 252/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate 4852/24, First Floor, New Delhi Ansari Road, Darya Ganj Vs. New Delhi Pan : Aabcj0701D Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Ito 4852/24, First Floor, Ward-4(2), Room No. Ansari Road, Darya Ganj 413A, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Vs. Pan : Aabcj0701D New Delhi Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…be reopened beyond the period of four years. This Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer ( s u p r a ) as well as the decision of this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del). The Court noted that a material change had been brought about to Section 147 of the Act with effect from 1st April 1989 and observed: “29. It is at once seen that the Amendment in Section 147 of the Act brought about a material change in law w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Section 147(a) as it stood prior to 1st April 1989 required the AO to have a…

M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 1002/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate 4852/24, First Floor, New Delhi Ansari Road, Darya Ganj Vs. New Delhi Pan : Aabcj0701D Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Ito 4852/24, First Floor, Ward-4(2), Room No. Ansari Road, Darya Ganj 413A, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Vs. Pan : Aabcj0701D New Delhi Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…be reopened beyond the period of four years. This Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer ( s u p r a ) as well as the decision of this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del). The Court noted that a material change had been brought about to Section 147 of the Act with effect from 1st April 1989 and observed: “29. It is at once seen that the Amendment in Section 147 of the Act brought about a material change in law w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Section 147(a) as it stood prior to 1st April 1989 required the AO to have a…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…e Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (m) CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.: 171 Taxman 379 (Del.). (n) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 308 ITR 22 (Del.). (o) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (p) Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT : WP(C) 12324/2015 (Del) dated 24.7.2017. 14. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the assessee is only requi…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…294 ITR 49. 8. Copy of judgment of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Optec Disc. Manufacturing reported in 11 DTR 0264 (Chand). 9. Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and others reported in 308 ITR 38 (Del). 10. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the reported in 57 DTR 0179. 11. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 338 ITR 51; 12. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 343 ITR 183. 13. Copy of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

ITA 5962/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…y all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment. Therefore, the proviso to section 147 of the I.T. Act is applicable. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and various other decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings are void ab-initio. 10. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and th…