Jainam Investments v. ACIT

439 ITR 154High Court2021#9813 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69CSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentsection 2(40)anonymous donationsection 153(c)section 164third party informationonus of proofincome tax settlement commission

Judgments citing Jainam Investments v. ACIT

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…plication of mind, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio, as has been held in the following legal decisions: - ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC) - ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - Jaimam Investments vs. ACIT: 439 ITR 154 (Bom.) - Revolation Forver Marketing (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 413 ITR 400 (Del) - Pr. CIT vs RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 1TR 5 (Del) - PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) - PCIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) - CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del) - CIT vs. Vinceta Jain and Atul Jain: 299 ITR 383 (Del) 19. In…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…section 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. 38. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. ACIT reported in (2021) 439 ITR 154 (Bom), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice on ground that the assessee had received accommodation entries in form of unsecured loans from various companies, since the assessee had furnished all information regarding said tra…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…section 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. 38. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. ACIT reported in (2021) 439 ITR 154 (Bom), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice on ground that the assessee had received accommodation entries in form of unsecured loans from various companies, since the assessee had furnished all information regarding said tra…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…section 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. 38. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. ACIT reported in (2021) 439 ITR 154 (Bom), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice on ground that the assessee had received accommodation entries in form of unsecured loans from various companies, since the assessee had furnished all information regarding said tra…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…uj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii) 455 ITR 539 (Jhar) Naveen Kumar Jaiswal v. ITO xiv) 456 ITR 316 (Kar) CIT v. Canara Bank 8.1 Similar view has been expressed in the context of section 153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent Realtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (pages 280-305 of JPB) 9 Ground 3 to 3.7 of grounds of appeal…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…uj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii) 455 ITR 539 (Jhar) Naveen Kumar Jaiswal v. ITO xiv) 456 ITR 316 (Kar) CIT v. Canara Bank 8.1 Similar view has been expressed in the context of section 153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent Realtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (pages 280-305 of JPB) 9 Ground 3 to 3.7 of grounds of appeal…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…uj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii) 455 ITR 539 (Jhar) Naveen Kumar Jaiswal v. ITO xiv) 456 ITR 316 (Kar) CIT v. Canara Bank 8.1 Similar view has been expressed in the context of section 153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent Realtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (pages 280-305 of JPB) 9 Ground 3 to 3.7 of grounds of appeal…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…uj) Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT xiii) 455 ITR 539 (Jhar) Naveen Kumar Jaiswal v. ITO xiv) 456 ITR 316 (Kar) CIT v. Canara Bank 8.1 Similar view has been expressed in the context of section 153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent Realtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (pages 280-305 of JPB) 9 Ground 3 to 3.7 of grounds of appeal…

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…f Hon’ble Bombay High Court in dated 22.03.2021 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. 9 Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6040 & 6120/Mum/2019 6040 & 6120/Mum/2019 the case of Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi High Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Compagnie 437 ITR 1. Compagnie 437 ITR 1. 6. On the contr…

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…f Hon’ble Bombay High Court in dated 22.03.2021 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. 9 Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6040 & 6120/Mum/2019 6040 & 6120/Mum/2019 the case of Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi High Jainam Investments (439 ITR 154), Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Court in the case of Es Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. ET Compagnie 437 ITR 1. Compagnie 437 ITR 1. 6. On the contr…

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…opinion rendered by the audit party to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief. add to or colour the significance of such law. 6. In another unreported judgment of this Court in Jainam Investments v. Asst. CIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 327/283 Taxman 439/439 ITR 154, it is held that the reasons for reopening an assessment should be that of the Assessing Officer alone who is issuing the notice and he cannot act merely on the dictates of any another person in issuing the notice. Therefore, the true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income-tax Officer…

Jainam Investments v. ACIT (439 ITR 154) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax