Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

289 ITR 341Supreme Court of India2007#369 most cited

What is Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT authority for?

A block assessment proceeding under section 158BD is illegal if the procedure laid down in section 153C is not followed. The provisions of section 153C are similar to section 158BD in block assessment proceedings.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT · section 153C · section 158BD · block assessment · satisfaction note · assumption of jurisdiction · search · documents seized · illegal assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158BD
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdjdasection 158bcsection 153c(1)survey under section 133asatisfaction notedocuments seizedsection 158bsection 149date of transfersection 158rule of consistency

Judgments citing Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Orient Bell Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7534/DEL/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)

…where two views or two possible interpretations of an issue is available, then a view favorable to the assessee is required to be adopted and followed. One of the prominent judgments on this proposition is available in the case of Manish Maheshwari v/s ACIT (289 ITR 341), where it has been held that where two views are possible, a view in favor of the taxpayer should be followed. Thus, even if it is held that view expressed by the ITAT in Richa Global Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) is a correct view, then also the alternate favorable view of Hon’ble ITAT in Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case, the Delhi ITAT's view…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 4460/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…ng that no satisfaction has been recorded in the case of 2 the person searched. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in relying on the decision in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs ACIT & Another (2007) 289 ITR 341 whereas the facts in the relied case was that no satisfaction at all was recorded. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Before us, the respondent-assessee h…

M/S Meza Filling Station, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, Appeal i.e

ITA 55/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ ALLAHABAD [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.48 to 55/ALLD/2019 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-12 M/s Meja Filling Station, v. DCIT, Lakhimpur, Meja Road, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AAHFM 2296H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17.02.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2021 O R D E R These eight appeals by the assessee are directed against eight separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow all dated 21.01…

M/S Meza Filling Station, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, Appeal i.e

ITA 54/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ ALLAHABAD [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.48 to 55/ALLD/2019 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-12 M/s Meja Filling Station, v. DCIT, Lakhimpur, Meja Road, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AAHFM 2296H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17.02.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2021 O R D E R These eight appeals by the assessee are directed against eight separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow all dated 21.01…

M/S Meza Filling Station, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, Appeal i.e

ITA 53/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ ALLAHABAD [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.48 to 55/ALLD/2019 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-12 M/s Meja Filling Station, v. DCIT, Lakhimpur, Meja Road, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AAHFM 2296H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17.02.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2021 O R D E R These eight appeals by the assessee are directed against eight separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow all dated 21.01…

M/S Meza Filling Station, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, Appeal i.e

ITA 51/ALLD/2019[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Feb 2021AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ ALLAHABAD [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.48 to 55/ALLD/2019 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-12 M/s Meja Filling Station, v. DCIT, Lakhimpur, Meja Road, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AAHFM 2296H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17.02.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2021 O R D E R These eight appeals by the assessee are directed against eight separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow all dated 21.01…

M/S Meza Filling Station, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, Appeal i.e

ITA 50/ALLD/2019[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Feb 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ ALLAHABAD [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.48 to 55/ALLD/2019 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-12 M/s Meja Filling Station, v. DCIT, Lakhimpur, Meja Road, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AAHFM 2296H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17.02.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2021 O R D E R These eight appeals by the assessee are directed against eight separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow all dated 21.01…

M/S. Sumer Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumer Builders Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 220, Commerce House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, Pan: Aaacs7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…not been followed by the A.O. and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. We also observe that the CIT(A) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT and another, reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341, wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD of the Act in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lakshmi Vanketesh Transport, Hospet

In the result, all the appeals of the assesses are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…rial leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Honble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. ITA Nos. 1813 to 1818 & 1789 to 1791/Bang/2017 Page 20 of 25 The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lakshmi Vanketesh Minerals, Hospet

In the result, all the appeals of the assesses are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…rial leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Honble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. ITA Nos. 1813 to 1818 & 1789 to 1791/Bang/2017 Page 20 of 25 The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lakshmi Venketesh Minerals, Hospet

In the result, all the appeals of the assesses are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1789/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…rial leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Honble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. ITA Nos. 1813 to 1818 & 1789 to 1791/Bang/2017 Page 20 of 25 The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incr…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…down under s. 153C has not been followed by the AO and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. We also observe that the CIT(A) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 / 159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in s. 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the provisions of s. 153C are exactly 8 [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] similar to the provisions of s. 158BD of the Act in block assessment proce…

Sri Panati Vittalanath Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the assessment year 2015-16

ITA 1770/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. S.T Seshadri, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234

…nd others as well as satisfaction note recorded by the AO to justify the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act, as requested by the assessee. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari reported in 289 ITR 341(SC) and M/s Calcutta Knitwears reported in 362 ITR 673, the proceedings initiated are bad in law and liable to be cancelled. However, the ld.CIT (A) observed that he has called for and verified the assessment record of the persons searched that Sri P.Gopinath Reddy and also assessment record of the assessee and found that AO of Sri P Gopinath Red…

Sandvik Machining Solution Ab, (Formerly Known As) Sandvik Tolling Severige Ab), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It), Circle -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…C) has held that when two interpretations are possible, ordinarily the Court would interpret the provision in favour of a tax-payer, and against the Revenue. Similar view has been reiterated in a series of judgments including Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). As the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Infrasoft (supra) is in favour of the assessee, we follow the same and that is more so for the raison d`etre that the Tribunal in its order dated 29-03-2019 in ITA Nos. 195 to 197/PUN/2017 in the assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 has also decided similar issu…

Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 777/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 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 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ng Officer and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. 14 ITA.No.777/Del./2019 Shri Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 / 159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering t…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7413/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153C

…down under s. 153C has not been followed by the AO and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. We also observe that the CIT(A) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 / 159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in s. 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the provisions of s. 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of s. 158BD of the Act in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and…

Smt. Subbalakshmi, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1149/BANG/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Junior to Shri K.V. Arvind

…u/s. 153C of the Act. Furthermore, the appellant had asked for the copies of the satisfaction note recorded to initiate proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, which is a sine-qua-non as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MANISH MAHESHWARI reported in 289 ITR 341 [SC]. Satisfaction note has not been provided by the authorities below and in the absence of any satisfaction, the assessment order passed u/s. 153C of the Act is bad in law and requires to be quashed. (e) Fourthly, on merits the appellant has challenged the inclusion of income in the hands of the joint family on the ground that no assessment cou…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Virender Kumar Bhatia

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA/732/2019HC Delhi01 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…New Delhi Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 300 ITR 83following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ITA 732/2019 Page 5 of 10 Court in case of CIT Vs. Mahesh Maheshwari 289 ITR 341. The Ld. AR further contended that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer on the order sheet and not in the notice is not valid satisfaction since satisfaction u/s 158BD of the Act has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the search person and not the Assessing Officer of the assessee and, therefore, such purported satisfactio…

Sri. B.A. Moideen Bava, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by both assessee is for assessment years under consideration stands allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 783/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel for Deptt
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 234

…the assessment requires to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the parity of reasons of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer & Others reported in 259 ITR 19 and Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT & Another reported in 289 ITR 341. 3.The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. The issue of notice under section 153C of the Act on an illegal search is bad in law…

M/S.Sandvik Tooling Sverige Ab, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2523/PUN/2017[AAKCS4689N]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2523/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…as held that when two interpretations are possible, ordinarily the Court would interpret the provision in favour of a tax- payer, and against the Revenue. Similar view has been reiterated in a series of judgments including Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). As the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Infrasoft (supra) is in favour of the assessee, we follow the same and that is more so for the raison d`etre that the Tribunal in its order dated 29-03-2019 in ITA Nos. 195 to 197/PUN/2017 in the assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 has also decided similar i…