Joshi vs Income Tax Officer (324 ITR 154)(Bom.), Godrej Industries 13 Ajay J. Doshi Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors.

377 ITR 1High Court2015#11628 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 68 Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 11 company section 14 section 143(3)india total income business document

Judgments citing Joshi vs Income Tax Officer (324 ITR 154)(Bom.), Godrej Industries 13 Ajay J. Doshi Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors.

CARISSA INVESTMENT PVT LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

Accordingly we are inclined to allow ground no. 2 in appeal of the assesse and that vitiates the whole assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order. The appeal of assesse is allowed and...

ITA 901/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, B-97, 2Nd Floor, Circle-5(2), Amrit Puri, Garhi, New Delhi. East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaacc3277A Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., B-97, 2Nd Floor, Circle-5(2), New Delhi Amrit Puri, Garhi, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaacc3277A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate & Shri Aakash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 282(1)(c)

…n the ITBA system.  The secondary ID (altrainvestment@yahoo.com) is found on MCA’s portal, which is maintained and updated by the company. 3.8 Thus, service by email was valid and complete in terms of the Act. Judicial Support:  CIT v. Chetan Gupta (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Del) Service of notice to the email address available in the return and on record is valid service under the Act.  Principal CIT v. I-Venue Technologies (P) Ltd. [2021] 440 ITR 111 (Madras HC). Notice sent by email at registered company email address is valid even if not responded to by the assessee. Service by Inspector - Registered Address 3.9…

ITO, WARD-18(), NEW DELHI vs. NIVIA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…2020 Supreme court) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268ITR 332 (Bom.) (HC) Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851 Mrs. Usha A Kaltwani vs. S.N. Soni [2004] 272 ITR 67 (Bom) (HC) Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.S. Singh, Dy. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) Aroni Commercial Ltd t/s DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom) (HC). Northern Exim Pvt Ltd t/s Dy.CIT (2013) 362 ITR 586 (Del) (HC). Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 414 ITR 385 (Delhi) (HC) - Deficiency in reasons recorded cannot be rectified in affidavit Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT-1(1)(1), ITA No. 170/Mum/20…

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3792/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

For Respondent: Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69

…ro Equities (P.) Ltd. (supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court that any notice issued without the sanction of the correct sanctioning authority will be invalid. This court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.S. Singh, Dy. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 354/235 Taxman 25/377 ITR 1 (Bom.) has held that an assessment can be reopened under section 147 and 148 of the Act only on the jurisdictional preconditions being satisfied strictly. This Court held that sanction of a superior officer to the reasons recorded in terms of section 151 should be obtained before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act and all jurisdictiona…

M/S. MATERIALS CHEMICALS AND PERFORMANCE INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY, MCC PTA INDIA CORP. PRIVATE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 388/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA डॉ मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अ"नकेश बनज", "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 388/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Materials Chemicals and Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Kolkata Performance Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACM 9169 K) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ($%यथ") 31.01.2024 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क( "त*थ Date of Pronouncement/ 07 .02.2024 आदेश उ-घोषणा क( "त*थ For the Appellant/ Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate "नधा12रती क…

DILIP BABURAO DALVI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1552/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dilip Baburao Dalvi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), 33, Shivaji Housing Society, Kolhapur 12Th Lane Rajarampuri, Kolhapur – 416008 Pan : Abepd8027H Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ise than through account payee cheque etc. 6. There is no gainsaying that re-assessment can be tested on the basis of reasons recorded and not otherwise. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Industries Limited Vs. B.S. Singh, DCIT & Ors. (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that the validity of reopening notice shall be determined with reference to reasons which are recorded in support thereof and nothing else. It further held that in the absence of reason to believe that income chargeable had escaped assessment, re-assessment notice shall not be sustainable. We are confronted with a case in which the A…

SMT. TARUNA VERMA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishismt Taruna Verma, Vs. Ito, A-340, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Ward-19(3), Pan:Akfpv1950P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rence can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded...." (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) d. Further reliance has been placed on a very recent judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.B. Singh DCIT & others (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom.) which held as under: "10. Therefore, the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice is the only evidence of the Assessing Officer’s reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. These reasons cannot be added to, deleted from or supplemented...." e. CIT v. S.R. Construction (2002) 257 ITR 502(M.P) 6 | P a g e T…

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…(ITA No.5273/Del./2013) dated 03/05/2016, R.M.G. Plyvinxl (I) Ltd. (2016) 48 ITR (Trib.) 674 (Del.), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Prashant Joshi vs Income Tax Officer (324 ITR 154)(Bom.), Godrej Industries 13 Ajay J. Doshi Ltd. vs DCIT & Ors. (2015) 377 ITR 1(Bom.) supports the case of the assessee. In the present appeal, the assessee, during assessment proceedings, furnished the necessary documents, as claimed in the paper book (filed before this Tribunal), which is summarized hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- Particulars Evidence Paper Book Pg. No. (i) Evidence of Copy of Purchase of 25000…

SHRI K. ASHOKKUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT., CIR.-23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3462/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh.G P MehtaFor Respondent: Sh.Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA/2323/M/2011K.Ashokkumar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"",लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.JoginderSingh,Judicial Member and Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2323/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 K.Ashokkumar ACIT Circle 23(2) C/o.Sanjay Sharma & Co. BKC,Bandra(E)Mumbai-51 17,Azad Shopping Center,2nd floor Vs. Grampanchayat Road,Goregaon(w) Mumbai-400062 PAN:AGQPK 0437 M आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3462/Mum/…

JUST TEXTILES LTD,AMBERNATH vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…owing decisions for the above proposition:-  Hindustan Lever Ltd., v R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851  Mrs. Usha A Kalwani v S.N.Soni 272 ITR 67 (Bom)  Godrej Industries Ltd., v B.S.Singh, Dy. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom) 12. In view of the above judicial pronouncements learned AR vehemently argued that the Assessment Order passed by the AO was not sustainable in law. 13. With regard to merit of the addition, it was argued by learned AR that AO has wrongly computed capital gains u/s.48 instead of Section 50 which is applicable to the depreciable assets. It was…