ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437Supreme Court of India1976#70 most cited

What is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das authority for?

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

721

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,541 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment · escaped income · failure to disclose material facts · live link · beyond four years · material facts · bogus claim

Also reported as

2 SCC 302153 Taxmann 282

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 250Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 147(a)section 158basection 150true and full disclosurelive linkunexplained jewellerysection 148(2)beyond four years

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

Sabbella Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 189/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…ings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta [1961] 41 ITR 191 ; [1961] 2 SCR 241)” Hon’ble apex in Income-tax Officer.v.Lakhmani Mewal Das([1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),court held that “The reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has…

Sathi Rama Krishna Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 188/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…ings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta [1961] 41 ITR 191 ; [1961] 2 SCR 241)” Hon’ble apex in Income-tax Officer.v.Lakhmani Mewal Das([1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),court held that “The reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…er, AO reopened the assessment. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO has found no tangible material on record except relying on findings made in AY 2011-12. In this connection, we refer to the following case law: 20.1 In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)], the Supreme Court held that the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide are not plenary. The words used by the statute are “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. In CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd [(2010) 228 CTR (SC) 488], Honourable Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-op…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. CIT (OSD), Range-10, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…er, AO reopened the assessment. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO has found no tangible material on record except relying on findings made in AY 2011-12. In this connection, we refer to the following case law: 20.1 In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)], the Supreme Court held that the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide are not plenary. The words used by the statute are “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. In CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd [(2010) 228 CTR (SC) 488], Honourable Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-op…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…er, AO reopened the assessment. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO has found no tangible material on record except relying on findings made in AY 2011-12. In this connection, we refer to the following case law: 20.1 In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)], the Supreme Court held that the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide are not plenary. The words used by the statute are “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. In CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd [(2010) 228 CTR (SC) 488], Honourable Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-op…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…er, AO reopened the assessment. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO has found no tangible material on record except relying on findings made in AY 2011-12. In this connection, we refer to the following case law: 20.1 In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)], the Supreme Court held that the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide are not plenary. The words used by the statute are “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect”. In CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd [(2010) 228 CTR (SC) 488], Honourable Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-op…

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

…SP Chalitha and others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC). 2. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 79 ITR 609 (SC). 3. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO and others vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437(SC); 4. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 713. 5. Copy of judgment of Tribunal in the caes of Smt. K. Narasamma vs. ITO in 32 ITD 494 (Hyd.). 6. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Uttranchal High Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc. vs. ACIT and others r…

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

…t has relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which support the contention of the appellant:- • M/s Ganga Saran & Sons Private Limited v Income tax officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) • Income tax officer v Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (Supreme Court) • Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s Kelvinator of India [2010] (187 TAXMAN 312) (Supreme Court) In view of the above, the AR has submitted that the subject matter of alleged action u/s 148 of the Act, i.e. fresh share capital, was already inquired by the A.O. in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and the same were con…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 5959/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, Pavitra Trexim 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

…t has relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which support the contention of the appellant:- • M/s Ganga Saran & Sons Private Limited v Income tax officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) • Income tax officer v Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (Supreme Court) • Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s Kelvinator of India [2010] (187 TAXMAN 312) (Supreme Court) 10 C.O. No.79/Del/2017 In view of the above, the AR has submitted that the subject matter of alleged action u/s 148 of the Act, i.e. fresh share capital, was already inquired by the A.O. in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the…

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITA 46/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA and Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Seema Meena,JCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 147Section 54B

…ered at this stage as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.vs ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), Great Arts (P) Ltd vs ITO [2002] 257 ITR 639 (Del.). The assessee cannot challenge sufficiency to belief – ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). 4.9. It has been held by various courts that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose primary facts and truly. Reliance is placed upon the following. (a) Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala vs M.G. Kamat[1994] 210 ITR 956 (Bom.) ‘’ Assessee primarily must disclose particular portions of documents which are material’’. (b) Parushuram Pottery Works…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd

ITA/461/2018HC Delhi17 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 9

…conditions are satisfied no relief of deposit or furnishing Bank Guarantees can be granted as that amounts to Attachment before Judgement. Reliance is placed on the judgment in case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. and Anr. vs. Solanki Traders, [(2008) 2 SCC 302] wherein it was held that power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC being an extra ordinary power, must be carefully and sparingly exercised. 40. Separate arguments have been advanced on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The first and foremost objection of the said Respondents is that no relief can be claimed against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in the…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-3 vs. Hfcl Infotel Ltd

ITA/460/2018HC Delhi16 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 9

…conditions are satisfied no relief of deposit or furnishing Bank Guarantees can be granted as that amounts to Attachment before Judgement. Reliance is placed on the judgment in case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. and Anr. vs. Solanki Traders, [(2008) 2 SCC 302] wherein it was held that power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC being an extra ordinary power, must be carefully and sparingly exercised. 40. Separate arguments have been advanced on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The first and foremost objection of the said Respondents is that no relief can be claimed against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in the…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…ation received from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the creditors were engaged in issuing accommodation entries. In support of his contention, the ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 96 DTR 299, wherein it has been held that there was a clear lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Once the assessee had furnished all the material including PAN, loan confirmations and bank statements, in such an eventuality, no…

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Madanlal Kitawat (HUF), Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7100/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…ation received from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the creditors were engaged in issuing accommodation entries. In support of his contention, the ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 96 DTR 299, wherein it has been held that there was a clear lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Once the assessee had furnished all the material including PAN, loan confirmations and bank statements, in such an eventuality, no…

Lodha Estate India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in Grounds Nos

ITA 5466/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.5466/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Lodha Estate India Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cen Cir.7(3), Mumbai 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No.655, Aaykarbhavan, M.K. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1723 E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 37Section 40Section 80I

…ons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in ITO vs LakhmaniMewal Das [1976 ]103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax income escaping assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Court first held that the section provides that there must exist “reasons to believe“ and not “reasons to suspect”. We note that in the assessee`s case under consideration, there was reason to believe, that is, declarati…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…n submissions, the learned DR relied upon following case laws:- a) Eleganza Jewellery Limited v. CIT (20140 62 taxmann.com 46(Bom HC). b) CIT v. National Tyre & Rubber Tyres Co. Of India Limited (2011) 15 taxmann.com (ker.) (c) ITO v. Lakmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437(SC) (d) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456(SC) (e) Raymond Woolen Mills v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34(SC) (f) Desh Raj Udyog v. ITO (2009) 318 ITR 6(All.) The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that originally return of income was filed in time by the assessee with the Revenue as stipulated u/s. 139(1). It was submitted that conditions…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

ITA 334/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 334/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 cuke The ACIT, M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Vs. Circle- 6, Development & Investment Corporation Jaipur. Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR4695J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 4/JP/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 334/JP/2016) fu/kZkj.k…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. In Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. I…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. In Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. I…

Sh. Varinder Kumar Soul, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Jalandhar

ITA 451/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ghulam Mustafa (D. R.)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PAN: CVIPS 5218R Sh. Varinder Kumar Soul Vs. Income Tax Officer, 209-New Jawahar Nagar, Ward-3(2), Jalandhar. Jalandhar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Ghulam Mustafa (D. R.) Date of Hearing: 18.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 16.01.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…