Indulata Rangwala v. DCIT

384 ITR 337High Court2016#843 most cited

What is Indulata Rangwala v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid if there is some tangible material on which the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe income has escaped assessment, irrespective of the sufficiency or correctness of that material at the initial stage. However, the AO must consider the reasons recorded for reopening.

123

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Indulata Rangwala v. DCIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reason to believe · tangible material · escapement of income · reopening of assessment · regular assessment · change of opinion

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)fresh tangible materialtangible materialfair market valuechange of opinionregular assessmentescapement of incomereason to believereopening of assessmentsection 37notice under section 148section 143(1)

Judgments citing Indulata Rangwala v. DCIT

Komali Nagayya, Tadipatri, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1370/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

…ition that tangible material is necessary for reopening of the assessment has to be followed even for the assessments which are completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. But we find that in a recent judgment in the case of Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “in a case where the initial return is processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and intimation is sent to the assessee, the reopening of such assessment no doubt requires the A.O. to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material”.…

Naraboyena Gangaraju, Tadipatri, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1369/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

…ition that tangible material is necessary for reopening of the assessment has to be followed even for the assessments which are completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. But we find that in a recent judgment in the case of Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “in a case where the initial return is processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and intimation is sent to the assessee, the reopening of such assessment no doubt requires the A.O. to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material”.…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. United Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 541/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.541/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.103/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Tax Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 3

…me Court has not been discussed in any of these cases. In fact, issue of intimation vs assessment has not been touched in any of these cases and has escaped discussion at all. Hon'ble High Courts have not dwelled upon this issue. 3. Indulata Rangwala v/s DCII 384 ITR 337 Delhi High Court (2016): Admission regarding incorrect legal position in earlier cases In this case while dealing with Sec. 147, for the A.Y. 1999-2000, the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) and DCIT v/s Zuari Estate Development &Investment Co (2015) were brought to the kind notice of Delhi High Court in an argu…

Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…t of cases filed and mainly relied upon the following decisions : (i) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 2017- TIOL-253-SC-IT. (ii) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Del.) ( HC). (iii) Indu Lata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Del.) (HC) (iv) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO (2017) 245 Taxman 333 (SC) (v) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO 79 taxman.com 409. (vi) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017-TIOL-42-SC- IT. (vii) Aravali Infrapower Ltd., vs. DCIT 2017 390 ITR 456 (Del.) (HC). (viii) Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO (2014) 227 Taxman 374 (SC). (ix) Raymond Wooll…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ananthapur vs. J Jyothi Prasad, Tadipatri

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1975/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

…ition that tangible material is necessary for reopening of the assessment has to be followed even for the assessments which are completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. But we find that in a recent judgment in the case of Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “in a case where the initial return is processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and intimation is sent to the assessee, the reopening of such assessment no doubt requires the A.O. to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do not require any fresh tangible material”.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT, D.R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…& survey proceedings: • PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT) . • PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. f20171 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/2017/392 ITR 444 (Delhi). • Indu Lata Rangwala Vs PCIT 2017180taxmann.com102(Delhi)/r20161 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/20161 286 CTR 474 (Delhi). • Yoqendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/20141 227 Taxman 374 (SC). • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others T236 ITR 341. • ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007]161 Taxman 316 (SC)/2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/r20071 210 CTR 30 (SC). • Yuvraj v. Union of India 315 ITR 841 (SC). • An…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement. Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1586/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumard C I T - 3(2)(1) M/S. Maharashtra Airport Room No. 674, 6Th Floor Development Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 12Th Floor, World Trade Mumbai 400020 Centre Tower No. 1 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Pan –Aadcm9623M Appellant Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Maharashtra Airport D C I T - 3(2)(1) Development Co. Ltd. Room No. 674, 6Th Floor 12Th Floor, World Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre Tower No. 1 Mumbai 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Pan –Aadcm9623M Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Revenue By: Shri Abhijit Patankar Assesseeby: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lal Chandani Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2018 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Jm The Aforesaid Appeal Of The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai For A.Y. 2008-09. Ita No. 1586/Mum/2016 – A.Y. 2008-09 2. The Basic Grievance Of The Department In This Appeal Is Against The Decision Of The Learned Cit(A) In Holding The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Bad In Law & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…T (2009) 308 ITR 290 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Asteroids Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR St. 24 (SC) (iii) Motilal R. Todi vs. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR (T) 49 (Mum) (iv) Golden Tobacco Ltd. vs. JCIT (2016) 48 ITR (T) 132 (Mum) (v) Indu Lata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Del) (vi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 546 (SC) (vii) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The undisputed facts are that the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1)…

Vista Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5768/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561; ii) Hindustan Liver Ltd v/s R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332; iii) Sabh Infrastructures Ltd. v/s ACIT, 398 ITR 198; iv) Indulata Rangwala v/s DCIT, 384 ITR 337; and v) NDT Systems v/s ITO, 363 ITR 603. 7 M/s. Vista Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [Now M/s. PVR Ltd.] 8. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, even otherwise also the issue on which the assessment was re–opened under section 147 of the Act having already been decided in favour of the assessee the re–opening under section 147 of the Act becom…

M/S Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2424/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Rishipal Investments & Finance (P) Ito, Ward- 21(3), Ltd., New Delhi. 25/31, Ambros House, Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…RI from CCE which was passing on to revenue authorities was ‘tangible material outside record’ to initiate valid re-assessment proceedings. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indu Lata Rangwala vs. DCIT reported in 384 ITR 337, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where initial return of income is processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form ‘reasons to believe’ that income has escaped assessment. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble S…

Sandeep Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.P. Jain[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. The Income-Tax Officer S/O Late Yogendar Singh Ward – 1(3) L/H Late Smt. Javitri Devi Ghaziabad R/O Village Noor Nagar Ghaziabad, U.P. Pan : Cfipd 6068 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2017 Assessee By : Shri Hiren Mehta, Ca Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, Ca Shri M.K. Madan, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit - Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT - DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50C

…upon the following decisions: 1. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication [P] ltd [2017]- TIOL-253-SC-IT] PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication [P] ltd [2017] 79 Taxmann.com 409 [DEL] 392 ITR 444 [DEL] 2. Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT [2017 80 Taxmann.com 102 [DEL] [2016] 384 ITR 337 [DEL] [2016] 286 CTR 474 [DEL] 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material on record. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by both the sides. From a reading of the reasons recorded by the AO at page 7 of the paper book, it is evident that the assessee has entered into a transaction with…

M/S. Network Programme (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4147/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 43B

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) and of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industries Power India Ltd., 394 ITR 547 (Del.) and Delhi High ITA No. 4147/Del./2014 6 Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. DCIT, 384 ITR 337 Del.). Several other decisions have also been relied upon by the assessee (copies placed on record). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. Authorities below and submitted that the lapse on the part of Assessing Officer to examine a particular claim, does not preclude him to reopen the completed assessment u/s. 147/14…

Chintels India Ltd vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8

The appeal is allowed

ITA/581/2016HC Delhi19 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A(1)Section 260A

…ITA 581/2016 ; ITA 707/2016 & ITA 731/2016 Page 1 of 11 $~22 to 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 581/2016 + ITA 707/2016 + ITA 731/2016 CHINTELS INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi & Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – CIRCLE 8 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 19.07.2017 Dr. S.…

Chintels India Ltd vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8

The appeal is allowed

ITA/731/2016HC Delhi19 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A(1)Section 260A

…ITA 581/2016 ; ITA 707/2016 & ITA 731/2016 Page 1 of 11 $~22 to 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 581/2016 + ITA 707/2016 + ITA 731/2016 CHINTELS INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi & Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – CIRCLE 8 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 19.07.2017 Dr. S.…

Shri Vineet Sethi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6359/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6359/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vineet Sethi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1105, Sbi, Cghs Society, Vikas Ward-71(1), Puri, New Delhi-110015 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahcps8765K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…t in the absence of any new tangible material was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Donaldson India Filters Systems (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 371 ITR 87 (Del.) " Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del.) " Indu Lata Rangwala Vs DCIT 384 ITR 337 (Del.) 8. In her rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the assessee escaped the assessment since the claim of loss from house property was not correctly made as the property was in joint name and the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act to t…

Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

ITA 6541/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA Nos.6541 to 6546/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Smt. Sumanlata Bansal, ACIT-17(1), 101, Naman Center, G-Block, 113, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Lalbaug, Parel, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAHPB0141N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by None…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikramendra Prasad Bhalla, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 517/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vikramendra Prasad Bhalla, Ward-7(4), Room No. 305, C-2, Greater Kailash Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Enclave-I, New Delhi Pan:Aanpb8241P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148

…assessment order. In the present case the reopening has been initiated within 4 years of the end of the assessment year. On issue of reopening when the return is processed under section 143 (1) of the income tax act Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Del) INDU LATA RANGWALA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX has held that Where the return initially filed is processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and an intimation is sent to an assessee, it is not an ‖assessment‖ in the strict sense of the term for the purposes of section 147 of the Act. In such event, there is no occasion for the Asses…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 530/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. The issue relating to the validity of assessment made un…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 529/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. The issue relating to the validity of assessment made un…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 528/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. The issue relating to the validity of assessment made un…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 527/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. The issue relating to the validity of assessment made un…