ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT and UOI

Q: How many judgments cite ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT and UOI?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT and UOI (348 ITR 452), spanning 2017 to 2023.

348 ITR 452High Court2012#9243 most cited

What is ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT and UOI authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if there is no tangible material for the belief that income has escaped assessment and the assessee has made sufficient disclosure of primary facts in audited accounts.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT · reopening of assessment · tangible material · escaped income · audited accounts · primary facts · failure to disclose · section 147 · section 148

Judgments citing ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. v. ACIT and UOI

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2752/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s. Glen Propbuild Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Circle-10(1), Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCG7652H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R Date of hearing: 06 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 17 04 2023 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHY…

Asst. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Lesing P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 947/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 2(3)(1) V. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., 61/62 Gaya Building, 4Th Floor, Y.M. Road Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 400003 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr8822L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Department by Shri T. Shankar

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…anies operated by Shri Shirish C Shah. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judicial decision of Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India reported in 187 Taxmann 312 (SC) and NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 68 DTR 90 (Bom). In conclusion, Ld. CIT(A) held that the material alleging that the share applicants belong to Shri Shirish C Shah group is found to be incorrect as also has been accepted in remand report dated 19/02/2016. 7. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. At the time of hearing, Ld.DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and…

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…34 (Bom) (HC). 11. Voltas Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom) (HC). 12 ITA.No.6022/Del./2016 M/s. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi. 12.Rose Serviced Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) (HC). 13. Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 347 ITR 546 (Guj) (HC). 14. Eagle Fashion P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax [2012] 347 ITR 401 (Guj) (HC). 4.2. Referring to the above cited decisions, he submitted that when there is no tangible material for belief that income had escaped assessment, su…

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

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

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

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

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

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

…. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. ACIT: 322 ITR 369 (Cal) 21. Aventis Pharma Limited, 323 ITR 570(Bom) 23. Usha International Limited, 348 ITR 485 (Del) 24. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 292 ITR 49 (Del) 25. Vipan Khanna, 255 ITR 220 (P&H) 26. NYK Line (India) Ltd. 68 DTR 90(Bom) 27. Bhor Industries Ltd, 267 ITR 161 (Bom) 28. Hindustan Lever Ltd, 268 ITR 332 (Bom ) 29. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, 269 ITR 186(Bom) 30. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. 267 ITR 200 (Bom ) 31. Grindwell Norton , 267 ITR 673 (Bom) 32. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd. 296 ITR 342(Del) 33. Abdul Rahman Sail. 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) 34. Asteroids Trading a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2048/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan : Aaacf1034E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…CIT v. 372 ITR 0762 (Bombay) – CIT Vs. Jet Speed Auto (P) Ltd. vi. 371 ITR 0179 (Delhi) – A. T. Kearney India Ltd. Vs. ITO vii. 371 ITR 0087 (Delhi) – Donaldson’s India Filtersystem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT viii. 367 ITR 0165 (Delhi) – Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT ix. 348 ITR 452 (Delhi) – Rose Service Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT x. 320 ITR 471 (Bombay) – ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Others. xi. 323 ITR 570 (Bombay) – Aventis Pharma Vs. ACIT & Ors. xii. 68 DTR 90 (Bombay) – NYK Line India Ltd. Vs. DCIT. “ 3. After pursuing the records of the Assessing Officer & the satisfaction note along with th…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…147 will apply. The A.O. has not pointed-out as to where is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and correctly all material facts. In support of the contention, he has relied upon following decisions : 1. Asian Paints Ltd., vs., DCIT [2009] 348 ITR 452 (Bom.) 2. Indu Lata Rangwala vs., DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT vs., Central Warehousing Corporation [2015] 371 3. ITR 81 (Del.) Pala Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd., vs., State of 4. Kerala [1999] 236 ITR 604 (Kerala) DCIT vs., Pala Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd., 5. [2000] 243 ITR 499 (Kerala) Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar […

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA No…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

DCIT (It) 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. B4U International Holdings Ltd

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…, reassessment is not valid, in absence of any fresh tangible material. 3.1.6 Reliance is this regard is placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Bombay High Court)[2012] 349 ITR 76 (Born) (ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 68 DTR 90(Bom) (High Court) (iii) Bapalal & Co. v/s. Jt. CIT - (2007) 289 ITR 37 (Mad.) (iv) M/s. Aipita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (21 SOT 302) (v) HV Transmissions Ltd. v. ITO I.T.A. No.2476/Mum/2010 (vi) Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Born.) (vii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV Vs. Feather Foam Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 296 ITR 342…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…j). 38. SHREE RAM BUILDERS vs. ACIT (OSD) [2015] 377 ITR 631 (Guj) 39. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ACIT [2015] 371 ITR 222 (Guj) 43. XEROX MODICORP LTD. Vs DCIT [2013] 350 ITR 308 (Del) 44. ROSE SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3E ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 5 Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6 Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 8 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9 CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 482 (Bom). 10 Direct information (P.) Ltd. v. ITO…

Smt. P.Hamsaveni, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1801/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Dass, JCIT (D.R)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 54F

…147 of the I.T. Act. Thus the reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : i) Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) ii) NYK Line India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 68 DTR 90 (Bom) iii) Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) assessment. Since the reopening of assessment is beyond the period of four years and therefore it is mandatory condition that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment. In the absence of any such finding as it is evident from the r…