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 460High Court2015#3734 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Krown Agro Foods · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reason to suspect · escapement of income · tangible material · fishing inquiry · reassessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 112(1)Section 115BBE Section 115JAA Section 131

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessment live link first proviso to section 147 borrowed satisfaction fresh tangible material kelvinator shell company share capital and share premium tangible material mere change of opinion reason to believe escapement of income

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

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No. 16705/2018), and the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Del), Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) B Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Benches decisions in case of Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 65 ITR (Trib.) 663 (Agra), Unique Met…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Mesers Supertech Forgings(India) Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos.563/Asr/2018 Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s SupertechForgings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle- IV. Vill.Raowali,PathankotRoad, Jalandhar Jalandhar Pan No.AACCS0402M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor CA and Veer Sain Aggarwal Adv Respondent by Sh. Rajinder Kaur CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2021 ORDER Per, Dr. M. L. MEENA, A. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the l…

Sh. Babu Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 469/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2007-08 Cuke Shri Babu Lal Meena The Ito Vs. Plot No.717, Govind Vatika Ward- 5(4) Near Khole Ke Hanuman Ji Jaipur Laxman Doongri, Delhi Bye Pass Road, , Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Azgpm 4052 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sahai & Shri Ashish Sharma,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/11/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sahai &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50

…(4), Jaipur but he had not recorded the reasons. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment and framing of assessment are bad in law. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 375 ITR 460. Therefore, the ld.AR of the submitted that reassessment is void ab-initio for want of 4 Shri Babu Lal Meena vs ITO, Ward- 5(4), Jaipur jurisdiction of the AO who had initiated the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that assessee has not raised any objection of jurisdiction either before the AO dur…

Shri Shravan Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 517/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11. cuke Shravan Choudhary, Assistant Commissioner of Vs. 82, Dhuleshwar Garden, Income Tax, Opp. PMG Office, Ajmer Road, Circle-5, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABIPC 7810 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Ranka & Shri…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…Sugar and Gen. Ind. Ex dated 30.07.2007 29. 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava v CIT 30. 35 taxmann.com 215 (Del) CIT vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P.) Ltd. dated 26.04.2013 (introduction of share capital) 31. 393 ITR 157 (Del) Amsa India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 32. 375 ITR 460 (Del) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. 33. 378 ITR 421 (Del) Oriental Insurance Co. v. CIT 34. 382 ITR 443 (Del) Rustagi Engineering Ldyog(P)Ltd. v. DCIT 35. 386 ITR 545 (Del) Agya Ram v. CIT 36. ITA No. 108/2015 dated 19.11.2015 (Del) CIT v. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 37. 395 ITR 255 Rajiv Agarwal v. ACIT 38. 395 ITR 677 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Meena…

Gagandeep Maan, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)Section 148

…sideration that no addition could have been made as the reassessment proceedings is itself bad in law. The ld. AR in support of is submissions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 375 ITR 460 (Delhi); ii. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Delhi); iii. Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). A.Y. 2009-10 5.2 The ld. AR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in impugned order has made certain observations which are contrary to the facts. The ld…

Income-Tax Officer, Pune vs. Shri Gagandeep Amarpal Maan, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1078/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)Section 148

Dr. Meena Dixit, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…t cannot be reopened on the basis of any reason which gives suspicion that there was escapement of income. For this proposition, learned AR relied on following case laws :-  Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (56 DTR 212)  Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (375 ITR 460) 3 Dr. Meena Dixit Accordingly he submitted that the reopening of assessment is not valid for the above said reasons. 4. The Learned AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to examine transactions made with Standard Chartered Bank, investments made in RBI Bonds and also to examine purchase of immovable prope…

Jay Ma Durga Buildtech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2720/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

For Appellant: Arvind Sandhe, ARFor Respondent: Bhupendra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 92ASection 92E

…upplied and on affidavit. We are of the view that it is not necessary to refer to this principle any further in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 16. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del) has analyzed the full bench judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) and held as under:- “10. The law in respect of re-opening of the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act is no longer res integra and has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements…

Shri Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, New Delhi vs. ITO, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 297/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sandeep Sapra, Advocate, C- Ward-1(2), 763, New Friends Colony, Haldwani New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpd1990R Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…d on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 692/2016 order dated 26.05.2017 (Del.) " Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) " Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 375 ITR 460 (Del.) " Rustagi Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 382 ITR 443 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs ACIT 82 ITR 147 (SC) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the assessee was meager as compared to the expenses incurred in the marriage of his daughter. Therefore, th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax--6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd

ITA/692/2016HC Delhi26 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 260ASection 68

…thak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.), Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd v. ITO (supra), CIT v. Insecticides (India) Limited (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del.) and Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del). Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court dated 19th November, 2015 in ITA No. 108 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P. Limited), Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 378 ITR 421 (Del), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del), Agy…