What is Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based on mere suspicion or conjecture; there must be a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, supported by tangible material, not for the purpose of conducting fishing inquiries.

How many judgments cite Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (375 ITR 460), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 112(1), Section 115BBE.

Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (375 ITR 460)

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

…a VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj) - Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) 17. Reason to believe', it is submitted, cannot be equated with reason to suspect [refer Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd vx ACIT: 375 ITR 460 (Deli. GS P a g e | 10 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) Engineering & Construction Corporation vs DDIT (International Taxation): 357 ITR 335 (Del) 18. It is submitted that reassessment initiated merely on the basis of vague report of the investigation wing/ appraisal report, without any independent application of mind, is beyond jurisdiction,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 460/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM DIVN BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT: HYDERABAD] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appealed against the S.No. ITA.No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. Order of CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, Dated M/s. Vijayasai 1. 359/Viz./2024 ACIT, Lakshmi Srinivasa 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Cotton Mills, 2017 Guntur PAN AANFS5583M Madhusushana 2. 367/Viz./2024 The ITO, Venkata Subba 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Rao Potti, Guntur 2017 PAN AINPP2211R Potti Kumara 3. 368/Viz./2024 The ITO, Naga Venkata Sai 2016- 10.07.2024 Ward…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 368/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM DIVN BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT: HYDERABAD] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appealed against the S.No. ITA.No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. Order of CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, Dated M/s. Vijayasai 1. 359/Viz./2024 ACIT, Lakshmi Srinivasa 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Cotton Mills, 2017 Guntur PAN AANFS5583M Madhusushana 2. 367/Viz./2024 The ITO, Venkata Subba 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Rao Potti, Guntur 2017 PAN AINPP2211R Potti Kumara 3. 368/Viz./2024 The ITO, Naga Venkata Sai 2016- 10.07.2024 Ward…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 367/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM DIVN BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT: HYDERABAD] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appealed against the S.No. ITA.No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. Order of CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, Dated M/s. Vijayasai 1. 359/Viz./2024 ACIT, Lakshmi Srinivasa 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Cotton Mills, 2017 Guntur PAN AANFS5583M Madhusushana 2. 367/Viz./2024 The ITO, Venkata Subba 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Rao Potti, Guntur 2017 PAN AINPP2211R Potti Kumara 3. 368/Viz./2024 The ITO, Naga Venkata Sai 2016- 10.07.2024 Ward…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 359/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM DIVN BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT: HYDERABAD] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appealed against the S.No. ITA.No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. Order of CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, Dated M/s. Vijayasai 1. 359/Viz./2024 ACIT, Lakshmi Srinivasa 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Cotton Mills, 2017 Guntur PAN AANFS5583M Madhusushana 2. 367/Viz./2024 The ITO, Venkata Subba 2016- 10.07.2024 Guntur Rao Potti, Guntur 2017 PAN AINPP2211R Potti Kumara 3. 368/Viz./2024 The ITO, Naga Venkata Sai 2016- 10.07.2024 Ward…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…sessment after 4 years from the close of the assessment year, unless the income had escaped\nassessment on account of the failure of the assessee.\n4.\nOther cases:-\na) Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi)\nb) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi)\nc) RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)\n1.3.\nThe notice was issue solely based on information received from DDIT and the Id.\nAO has not applied his mind. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are\nerroneous and bad in law. The A.O. must have valid \"reasons to believe” and the reasons\nmust have the ra…

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Section 10(38)

…pply third party statement\nand offer cross examination even though assessee has not\nasked for.\n5.\nSarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110\n(Del.).\n6.\nKrown Agro Foods (P) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle 5(1)(2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del).\n7.\nJudgement dated 19th November, 2015 In ITA No. 108 of 2013\n(Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P.\nLimited).\n8.\nOriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (2015) 378 ITR 421.\n9.\n(Del), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited v. DCIT (2016)\n382 ITR 443 (Del).\n10.\nAgya Ram v. CIT (2016) 386…

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…TO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.),\nSignature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (supra), Commissioner Of\nIncome Tax-Iv v. M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd.... (2013) 357 ITR\n330 (Del.) and Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) (2015) 375 ITR 460\n(Del). Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court\ndated 19 November, 2015 in ITA No. 108 of 2013 (Commissioner\nof Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P. Limited), Oriental\nInsurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(2015) 378 ITR 421 (Del), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.)\nLimited v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del), Agya…

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…e of Hotel Oasis (Surat) (P) LTD. v. Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (2011) 67 DTR (GuJ) 378], Division Bench of the Court observed\nthat assessment cannot be reopened merely to make inquiries,\n(III)\nIn the case of Krown Agro Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Delhi)\n(HC), It was held that Notice based on suspicion and surmise is not valid. The\nrequirement of law is \"reason to believe\" and not reason to \"suspect\".\n(iv)\nIn the case of Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel v. Income Tax Officer reported in\n(2011) 56 DTR (Gul.) 212], the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\nobserved that the ass…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…g officer may act on direct or circumstantial BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT evidence but not on mere presumption or suspicion. "Reason to believe', it is submitted, cannot be equated with 'reason to suspect [refer Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd vs. ACIT: 375 ITR 460 (Del), GS Engineering & Construction Corporation vs DDIT (International Taxation): 357 ITR 335 (Del.)] 54. It is also settled law that the assessing officer cannot reopen assessment to carry out verification or fishing and roving enquiries to establish escapement of income [Refer Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha: 79 ITR 603 (SC), CIT v. Batra Bhatt…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…g officer may act on direct or circumstantial BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT evidence but not on mere presumption or suspicion. "Reason to believe', it is submitted, cannot be equated with 'reason to suspect [refer Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd vs. ACIT: 375 ITR 460 (Del), GS Engineering & Construction Corporation vs DDIT (International Taxation): 357 ITR 335 (Del.)] 54. It is also settled law that the assessing officer cannot reopen assessment to carry out verification or fishing and roving enquiries to establish escapement of income [Refer Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha: 79 ITR 603 (SC), CIT v. Batra Bhatt…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…ation or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 7. Further the words "reason to believe" cannot be equated with 'reason to suspect', as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd vs. ACIT: 375 ITR 460, as follows: "The reason to believe recorded by the Assessing officer is not based on any material that had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. There is a mere suspicion in the mind of the Assessing Officer and the notice under section 147/148 has been issued for the purpose of verification and for clearing the cloud of suspicion. Th…

SURINDER FILMS(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…at reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law. 10. Further in view of our observation that the reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous, we draw support from the following decisions:- i) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [375 ITR 460 (Del)] ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) 10.1. Also in case where the return has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and no regular assessment has been carried out by way of selecting the case for scrutiny, for reopening the case after four years, tangible material is required which in the instant case is missin…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 9133/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

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

…led him to hold belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such reference to the material is sorely missing. Similar judgements have been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del); CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del) Orient Craft Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) and other plethora of other judgments. 29. We thus find overwhelming potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded and approval granted thereon under Section 151 do not meet the requirement of law at all and thus the i…

BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 7921/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

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

…led him to hold belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such reference to the material is sorely missing. Similar judgements have been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del); CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del) Orient Craft Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) and other plethora of other judgments. 29. We thus find overwhelming potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded and approval granted thereon under Section 151 do not meet the requirement of law at all and thus the i…

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ECI Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s. ECI Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Rev…

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ECI Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s. ECI Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Rev…

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…vestigation Wing cannot per se be considered to be a tangible material for warranting reopening:- 1.11.i SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) 1.11.ii Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 1.11.iii Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) 1.12. Thus, what was required and expected, as per the settled principles of reopening, was corroboration, checking and cross checking of the information, received from the Investigation Wing, with independent evidences and establishing a clear trail suggesting, even if prima facie, issuing of bogus invoices from the assessee. However, as…

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…ning, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements- Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.6.1. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) 1.6.2. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) 1.6.3. Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) 1.6.4. RMG Polyvinyl (I)B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) 1.6.5. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) 1.7. In the case of Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Gujarat), the High Court, at Para 7-8, held that even the assessment which is completed u/s. 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper ‘reason to b…

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…opening is bad in law. i. ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) (SC) ii.Dass Friends Builders(P.) Ltd. vs.DCIT (153 taxmann 282) (Alh.HC) iii.TTK Prestige Ltd. v. DCIT (97 taxmann.com 112) (Kar.HC) 10 ITA 183/Hyd/2020 iv. Known Agro Foods(P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 375 ITR 460 (Del.HC) 16. So far as, the merit of case is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on merit also the amount has to be allowed as expenditure u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- i.ACIT vs.L.S.Cable(P) Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 616 (Del.HC) ii.Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd. vs…

Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

What is Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

SURINDER FILMS(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD