M.P. Ramachandran v. DCIT

32 SOT 592Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#8576 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 151Section 153(1)

Issues it is cited on

substantive assessmentprotective assessmentincome escaping assessmentblock periodescapement of incomereassessment proceedingsreason to believereopening of assessmentincome-tax officerundisclosed incomenotice under section 148section 131

Judgments citing M.P. Ramachandran v. DCIT

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…come where ownership is uncertain. The assessee cannot compel the Assessing Officer to adopt a protective assessment when the Assessing Officer has reached a definite conclusion regarding taxability. Further, the coordinate bench in M.P. Ramachandran v. DCIT (32 SOT 592) has further clarified that protective assessment is based on doubt. 33. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the investment in the LIC policy stood in the name of the assessee and the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source thereof. The addition has thus been made after reaching a clear…

SIEMENS MOBILITY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAX), 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 4713/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Siemens Mobility GmbH, ACIT(IT)-4(2)(1), 17th Floor, Room No. 1708, Germany, Otto-Hahn- Ring 6, Muenchen, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Munich, Germany. Mumbai-400021. PAN: ABACS8242C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin Sangoi, AR : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is…

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

Section 50C

…is made by the AO is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: (i).ITO vs. Fussy Financial Services P. Ltd. in ITANo.4227/Del/2014 (ITAT- Delhi) (ii). MP Rameshchandran vs. DCIT, Central-8 32 SOT 592 (ITAT Mumbai) (iii).ITO vs. Keshava Nanda Kakati (ITAT-Gauhati) 133 taxmann.com 316 5. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied upon orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The assessee is individual and filed return of income for the year under consideration on 12th August 201…

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

…l of the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Suresh K. Jajo vs ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) wherein following the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandaran vs DCIT (2009) 32 SOT 592 (Mumbai), it has been held that there may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal in the case of M.P. Ramachandran vs DCIT (supra) read as under:- “Though from the reasons recorded by th…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

…e Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the protective / precautionary assessment of tax is justified under the provisions of the Act. 15.3 Thereafter, he had also relied upon the decision in the case of M.P. Rama Chandran Vs. DCIT (Mumbai Tribunal reported in 32 SOT 592) dealing with substantive / protective agreement u/s section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it c…

VIJAY KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5755/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Had Filed A Condonation Petition Together With His Affidavit & Also An Affidavit From The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts & Explaining The Reasons For Delay. We Have Gone Through Those Documents & We Are Convinced That Assessee Was Prevented From Reasonable Cause In Not Filing The Appeal Before Us Within The Prescribed Time. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Vijay Kumar Vs. Asst. CIT Cen Cir 13 11th Floor, R.No.1103, 354, Shreyas 5th Floor, Old CGO Building 180 Madam Cama Road M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AACPK3309C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah / Ms. Mittali Gopani Revenue by Shri Achal Sharma Date of Hearing 26/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5755/Mum/2013 for A.Y.2010-11 a…

PEGASES PROPERTIES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 350/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17
Section 153CSection 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.350-352/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19) M/s. Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 2413, 1st Floor Income Tax Kumar Capital Central Circle-2(3) East Street, Camp Mumbai 8th Floor, Old CGO Annexe Pune- 411 001 Building M.K.Road, Marine Lines Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAECP1420E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Nikhil Tiwari Revenue by Shri Rakesh Garg Date of Hearing 01/12/2021 Date of Pronouncement 23/12 /202…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ct and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee for reopening of assessment and, thus, all proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act to the assessee including notices are hereby quashed. b. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandran Vs. DCIT (32 SOT 592) has held that: “Thus, protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment. There may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective 21 I.T.As. No. 4049/DEL/2017 assessment without there being a substantive assessment. In simple words, there has to be some substantive assess…

SUGAM VANIJYA HOLDINGS P.LTD,BENGLURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9502/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms Suchitra Kamblesugam Vanijya Holdings Vs Dcit Private Limited Circle-24(2) Vr Bengaluru, No. 11B, C.R.Building, Survey No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 Dyvasandra Industrial Area 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru- 560048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2020

Section 143Section 144CSection 32Section 37Section 56Section 57

…ssessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment and thus, the substantive assessment must be made before protective assessment is made. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of MP Ramachandran Vs. DCIT 32 SOT 592 (Mum.) as well as Suresh K Jajoo Vs. ACIT 39 SOT 514 (Mum.). The Ld. AR submitted that a protective assessment has not discussed about the substantive assessment being made in the assessment order but has simply proceeded to make the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee. Without prejudice to the same arguments, the Ld. AR further sub…

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 554/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Manoj Kumar Jain, Vs Dcit, R-8/11, Flat No. 700, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aclpj4982H Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ssessment without any protective assessment, however, there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MP Ramchandara Vs. DCIT reported in 32 SOT 592 and Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 and various other decisions and submitted that since no substantive addition has been made in the hand of any other person, therefore, there cannot be any protective addition in the hands of the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) so far as th…

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3561/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. Dcit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates Central Circle Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Cgo C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi-110025 Complex -1, Hapur Road, Pan No.Aclpj4982H Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…ssessment without any protective assessment, however, there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MP Ramchandara Vs. DCIT reported in 32 SOT 592 and Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 and various other decisions and submitted that since no substantive addition has been made in the hand of any other person, therefore, there cannot be any protective addition in the hands of the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) so far as th…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…s of the ITAT where a view is stated to emanate that there can be no protective addition unless a substantive addition is made have to be seen in the context of what was being decided therein. This can be seen from the case of M.P. Ramachandran vs DCIT 120091 32 SOT 592 (Mum.). In this case, the facts of the matter and the reason why the ITAT held as it did is made very clear from the following extract of the order: '21. Here it will he relevant to note that what is meant by the protective assessment. It is an undisputed position that the protective assessment is not recognized by the Act. At thesame time it cann…

TOSCANA LASTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 670/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Toscana Lasts Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Since Amalgamated With Avantha Ward 16(3), Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, New Delhi. 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs. Toscana Lasts Ltd., Ward 16(3), (Since Amalgamated With New Delhi. Avantha Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj K. Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

…r Slump Sale Agreement." 7.15) The AO cannot tax an amount of Rs. 67,70,811/-(4,85,78,472- 4,18,107,661) on notional basis. There is no evidence to suggest that the assessee was in receipt of more than what was declared. In thecase M.P. Ramachandran vs. DCIT 32 SOT 592 (Mum), it was held that no hypothetical exercise is permissible to declare an income as accrued. Accordingly, the AO is hereby directed to accept the Sale consideration returned by the assessee. ! ' r : 7.16 The AO has not given any basis for determining the cost of net current assets at Rs. 1,18,78,472/- in place of 1,86,64,032/- adopted by the a…