Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer

159 ITR 956Supreme Court of India1986#2614 most cited

What is Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

For an addition to income or issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148, there must be a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; mere suspicion cannot form the basis for such action, as 'reason to believe' is not the same as 'reason to suspect'.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO · 159 ITR 956 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reason to suspect · mere suspicion · income escaping assessment · reassessment validity · basis of addition

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 148(2)Section 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

first proviso to section 147section 131(1)material facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatorsanctioning authoritymere change of opinionincome escaping assessmentreason to believeborrowed satisfactionlive linktangible materialescapement of income

Judgments citing Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer

G S Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6581/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ed on the following authorities: - CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (Full Bench); - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC); - CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310(Del); - CIT vs. ForanerFranch 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956(SC) - Associated Stone Industry Limited 224ITR 560 (SC) - CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd378 ITR 351 (Del.) Further, it is apparent from reason recorded that the Ld AO has merely reproduced the report of investigation wing without discussing the contents and material which lead to form basis of appellant being beneficiary of accomm…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 15, New Delhi vs. Deepti Agrawal, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2541/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifuar Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal R. No. 245, 2Nd Floor, E-2 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane Block, Ara Centre, Civil Lines Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi – 110054 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aampa0573C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Moha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

…ing e-Governance Service Provider of India and further, there is no findings that the assessee has booked the capital gain in connivance with the promoters of the company. Thus, the suspicion cannot become the basis of addition [CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956 (SC)]. 7.2.7 Considering the above facts and submissions and the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi on the identical issue of LTCG on the sale of same script wherein it was held that since the assessee has fulfilled the twin conditions laid down under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act and the AO had made no reference of non-fulfilment of such…

Intergrator Consultants Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 250

…essary documents as requested by the assessee, thereby, making the reopening bad in law. The said fact was also ignored by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard we placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (159 ITR 956) (SC), decision of Hon'ble Judicature of Bombay High Court in the matter of Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bom), decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITO vs. Lakshmi Mewal Das (103 ITR 437)(SC). 12. Even on the merits of the additions are concern, we noticed from the records that assessee company had made purchase and sale…

Laurels Properties Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1179/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250

…cessary documents as requested by the assessee, thereby, making the reopening bad in law. The said fact was also ignored by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard we placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation v.ITO (159 ITR 956) (SC), decision of Hon'ble Judicature of Bombay High Court in the matter of Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bom), decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITO vs. Lakshmi Mewal Das (103 ITR 437)(SC). 12. Even on the merits of the additions are concern, we noticed from the records that assessee company had made purchase and sale…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…fic information as was held by Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO 203 ITR 456. 7 ACIT v. A&D Estates (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as "reason to suspect" as was held in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. ITO 159 ITR 956, 970 (SC) and mere suspicion cannot be made the basis for issuance of reassessment notice as was held in CIT Vs. Ram Lal Manohar Lal 158 ITR 9, 11(Del). It is equally settled law that the action of reopening has to be judged only on the basis of the reason recorded and no extraneous material can be supplemented to see the validity of reopening.…

DCIT, Jhandewalan Extention vs. Jay Enn Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2541/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifuar Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal R. No. 245, 2Nd Floor, E-2 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane Block, Ara Centre, Civil Lines Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi – 110054 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aampa0573C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Moha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

…ing e-Governance Service Provider of India and further, there is no findings that the assessee has booked the capital gain in connivance with the promoters of the company. Thus, the suspicion cannot become the basis of addition [CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956 (SC)]. 7.2.7 Considering the above facts and submissions and the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi on the identical issue of LTCG on the sale of same script wherein it was held that since the assessee has fulfilled the twin conditions laid down under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act and the AO had made no reference of non-fulfilment of such…

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…essing Officer. At best, it was possible to say that two views were available and in such a situation it was held that the said provision was not available. In particular, the Bench noted the following enunciation of the law in Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 956 (SC) : "The principles on this branch of law are well-settled. To confer jurisdiction under clause (a) of section 147 of the Act beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year under section 148,. . . two conditions were required to be fulfilled: the first is that the Income- tax Officer must h…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…ar Sen V/s CIT 132 ITR 707 (Del. HC) c) United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del HC) d) CIT v. Kelvinator India (256 ITR 1, SC) e) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his action as to reason to believe on the basis of AIR informati…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…ar Sen V/s CIT 132 ITR 707 (Del. HC) c) United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del HC) d) CIT v. Kelvinator India (256 ITR 1, SC) e) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his action as to reason to believe on the basis of AIR informati…

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

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

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) analyzed the Phrase "reason to believe" and observed that "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn.” Indian Oil Corpn. v ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) Manikonda Venkata Narasimham v CIT (1960) 39 ITR 575 (AP) Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers v IAC (1995) 212 ITR 185 (Guj.) The provisions of section 147 empower the Assessing Officer, to reopen an assessment if he has “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment. The important words under section 147 are ‘has reason to believe’ Th…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Sanat Singha Roy, Kolkata

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed and the reopening of the assessment is hereby quashed being bad in law and the consequential additions stand deleted

ITA 624/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata................…………………………….….…….……Appellant Vs. Sanat Singha Roy……..……………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Mahishpota, Post Office-Natagarh, Kolkata-700113. [Pan: Anips0738A] Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 29, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :April 03, 2023

Section 250

…hat income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Act was not valid.“Reasons to believe” is different from “reasons to suspect” or from “to have an opinion” [Indian Oil Corporation us. ITO (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 83 : (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC)]. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the copy of the reasons recorded which, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under: OFFICE OF THE L.T.O. WD. (3) Block-CS 2 & 3, Ulterapan Complex, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkala-700054 Sanat Singha Roy, PAN: A…

M/S. Gokuldas Exports, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1062/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…legal the entire reopening proceedings framed by the AO in pursuant to the requirement of law is null and void. In support of his argument the learned A.R. relied on the following judgements: - 5 M/s. Gokaldas Exports “i) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) ii) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii) Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.) iv) Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd v. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 48 (Bombay) v) Hindustan Level Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) vi) CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Guj.) vii) CIT v. Hewlett Packard Digital Glob…

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…ce but not without the same. Reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The ratio has been laid down by a plethora of judgments some of which have been mentioned below:- Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.9.i Indian Oil Corpn. v ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) 1.9.ii Manikonda Venkata Narasimham v CIT (1960) 39 ITR 575 (AP) 1.9.iii Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers v IAC (1995) 212 ITR 185 (Guj.) 1.10. It reiterated that the sole basis, emerging out of the reasons recorded, of reopening the case of the assessee was the incriminating documents found during the course of search on the premises of Sh…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 407/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t in escapement of income if it is verified. However, under the provisions of Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s. 147. It is a trite law that mere a suspicion which requires further verification cannot be the basis for reopening. 5.11 It is also a settled position of law that validity of the reassessment sho…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 406/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t in escapement of income if it is verified. However, under the provisions of Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s. 147. It is a trite law that mere a suspicion which requires further verification cannot be the basis for reopening. 5.11 It is also a settled position of law that validity of the reassessment sho…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t in escapement of income if it is verified. However, under the provisions of Section 147, such suspicion is not capable of conferring jurisdiction upon the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) and Indian Oil Corporation (159 ITR 956) has held that the 'reason to believe' is different from 'reason to suspect' and it is the former which is required for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s. 147. It is a trite law that mere a suspicion which requires further verification cannot be the basis for reopening. 5.11 It is also a settled position of law that validity of the reassessment sho…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…tiated on mere reason to suspect and reason to believe is not forthcoming, then such proceedings are not sustainable in law. o. The Assessee relies on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: “reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147”. p. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : “It is well settled as a result of several decisions of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…aving paid unaccounted cash to a list of parties, the Ld.AO is empowered to make further enquiries with the assessee. 7. He relied on the following decisions  (1999) 236 ITR (SC.) Raymond Wollen Ltd.  (2020) 247 ITR 818 (SC.)Ess Ess Kay Engg.Co. P vs. CIT  159 ITR 956 (SC.) I.O.C. Vs. ITO  (1993) 203 ITR (SC) — Phool Chand Bajrang Lal. vs. ITO  324 ITR 54 (Bom.) Multiscreen Media Pvt. Ltd.  (2010) 329 ITR 28 (Del.) — Diwakar Engineers Ltd. vs. ITO  225 ITR 495 (Del.) — Rakesh Aggarwal 8. The Ld. Standing Counsel also placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Karti P. Chi…

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. S. PADMAVATHY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.600, 601/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri. M. J. Siwani, & DCIT, Vs. Shri. H. J.Siwani, Central Circle – 1(4), No.15/3, Binny Crescent Bengaluru. Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru-560 046. PAN : AHWPS 5879 E PAN: AHWSP 55878 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Annamalli, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice Pres…

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. S. PADMAVATHY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.600, 601/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri. M. J. Siwani, & DCIT, Vs. Shri. H. J.Siwani, Central Circle – 1(4), No.15/3, Binny Crescent Bengaluru. Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru-560 046. PAN : AHWPS 5879 E PAN: AHWSP 55878 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Annamalli, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice Pres…