How many judgments cite KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT?

16 judgments on BharatTax cite KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT (406 ITR 353), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 133(6), Section 143(3).

KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT

406 ITR 353High Court2018#7029 most cited

What is KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment under Section 148 is invalid if based on information already on record or if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose income, especially after four years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kanpur Texel P. Ltd. v. DCIT · 406 ITR 353 · Section 148 · reassessment · tangible material · failure to disclose · beyond four years · reasons recorded · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 23 Section 35(1)(i)

Issues it is cited on

sanction under section 151 beyond four years section 151(1)sanctioning authority approval under section 151 share capital and share premium live link kelvinator income escaping assessment section 292b non-application of mind tangible material

Judgments citing KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD. v. DCIT

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

…, reopening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.. Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that "reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid." In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-04 vs. M/S Ganesh Ganga Insvestments Pvt Ltd

ITA/25/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…opening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014) 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from I…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…e applicant had declared everything and the same was examined and accepted so later on it cannot be reopened after four years, we get supports from the following judgements: - It has been held by Allahabad High Court in the case of KANPUR TEXEL(P) LTD VS DCIT 406 ITR 353, THAT IF THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE CASES. WET INTER TRADE (P)LTD VS ITO 308ITR 22 (a) DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEM (P) LTD VS DCIT 371 (b) ITR 87 CIT VS MULTIPLEX TRADING INDUSTRIAL CO 378ITR 351. (c) Maruti Suzuki India ltd Vs DCIT 356 ITR 209 (d) GIRIRAJ STEEL LTD VS DCIT 402ITR 204 (e) DCIT VS SANTACK SOLUTI…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. M/S. Roland Educational and Charitable Trust

ITA/25/2022HC Orissa09 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. Parbati Mohapatra

ITA/19/2022HC Orissa08 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…, reopening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice 25 ITA.No.4183/Del./2019 M/s. Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi. based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case u…

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…, reopening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

…nt of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 79 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…ent of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 99 ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…shed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 81 ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC Township P. Ltd., Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…material found, 11 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. therefore, proceedings under section 148 was quashed.” Similar view have been taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel Pvt. Ltd., DCIT & Another [2018] 406 ITR 353 (All.). The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.) held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible material. Notice based on documents already on record, not valid.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Techman Buildwell P. Ltd., vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 771 (Del.) held that “Assessi…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., 68 ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi. Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…dgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel 152 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from I…

Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parmit M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. reopening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid.” In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Invest…