Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) v. CIT

208 ITR 266High Court1994#10866 most cited

What is Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment notices are valid if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe, based on definite and specific subsequent information, that income has escaped assessment. The sufficiency of these reasons is not a matter for the court to judge.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products v CIT · reassessment notice · validity of notice · reason to believe · income escaped assessment · subsequent information · definite and specific information · sufficiency of reasons

Judgments citing Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) v. CIT

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…oan to any person during the relevant period - subsequent information is definite, specified and reliable. Sufficiency of reasons for formation of belief is not for the court to judge. Reassessment notices are valid. [Applied/followed in- 208 ITR 196 (RAJ) : 208 ITR 266 (DEL): 209 ITR 01 (BOM) :209 ITR 135(BOM) : Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. - Vs.-CIT : 211 ITR 447 (SC): 214ITR 669 (RAJ) : 221ITR 538 (SC) :226 ITR :52 (GUH): 237ITR 549 (BOM):248 ITR 493 (P&H) :ITO - VS- Selected Dalurband Coal Co.Pvt. Ltd. 217ITR 597 (SC) :253 TR 83 (DEL) 257 ITR 481 (Guj)] And reliance is placed on honable Madras High Court…

ACIT (OSD), Ward - 12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITR 929 (BOM) LAKHMANI MEVAL DAS : 103 ITR 437, 445, 446(SC) viii) Subsequent information of concealment definite, specific, sufficient reasons not for court to decide, Reassessment notice valid. PHOOLDCHAND BAJRANGLAL : 203 ITR 456 (SC) MIDLAND FRUIT &VEG : 208 ITR 266 (DELHI) ix) New Amendment merges the provision of 147(a), 147(b). Only condition now is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, this reason to believe can be reached in any manner- it is not prequalified by the precondition of full and true disclosure of material by an assesse. RAKESH AGL 225 I…

Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITR 929 (BOM) LAKHMANI MEVAL DAS : 103 ITR 437, 445, 446(SC) viii) Subsequent information of concealment definite, specific, sufficient reasons not for court to decide, Reassessment notice valid. PHOOLDCHAND BAJRANGLAL : 203 ITR 456 (SC) MIDLAND FRUIT &VEG : 208 ITR 266 (DELHI) ix) New Amendment merges the provision of 147(a), 147(b). Only condition now is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, this reason to believe can be reached in any manner- it is not prequalified by the precondition of full and true disclosure of material by an assesse. RAKESH AGL 225 I…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Surat

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

ITA 3277/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Pan:Afppa6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Pan:Afppa6178M Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 147

…Page 1 of 23 Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal v. ITO 2(3)(7) Surat vice versa I.T.A. No. 2932 &3277/AHD/2016/A.Y.2007-08 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/AHD/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, PAN:AFPPA6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(…

Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 2932/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, Pan:Afppa6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Pan:Afppa6178M Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 147

…Page 1 of 23 Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal v. ITO 2(3)(7) Surat vice versa I.T.A. No. 2932 &3277/AHD/2016/A.Y.2007-08 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2932 & 3277/AHD/2016: िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 1. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, V. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, 2(3)(7), Mahidarpura Surat Surat 2. Shri Dipak Banwarilal Agarwal, PAN:AFPPA6178M 103 Devsagar, Dalgiya Street, Mahidarpura Surat 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(…

Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 2423/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO-1(3) (5) Surat/I.T.A. No.2423/Ahd/2016/A.Y.08-09 Page 1 of 38 +आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2423/Ahd/2016/SRT: Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 807, Sterling Apartment, Ward-1(3) (5), Surat. Nr. Priya Hotel, Athwalines, Surat – 395 0041. PAN: AHHPS 2944M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, CA िनधा"रती की ओर से…

M/S. Maverick Electronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 Maveric Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward No.6(3) C/O M/S D Ostwal & Associates, Fca New Delhi 303-304, Dhaka Chambers 2068/38, Naiwala Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005 Pan: Aaach 9596 B

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, C.A. and Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 151(1)

…f this case and thereafter recorded reasons for re-opening as there was escapement of income. 2.3. He relied on the following case laws. i. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and another, 224 ITR 362 (SC) ii. Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) vs. CIT, 208 ITR 266 (Del.) 3. After hearing rival contentions we find that the AO has recorded the reasons for reopening as follows. “In this case, information has been received from the DIT (Investigation) New Delhi that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1,28,00,000/- as follows. Beneficiary’s name Beneficiary Bene- Value of Instru- Date of Name of accou…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. O.J. Securities (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s C

ITA 3464/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2001-02 Ito, Ward 13(4) Vs. Oj Securities P Ltd. R.No.219, Cr Bldg. 1091 Js Place, 320 Delhi Gate Bazar New Delhi Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Pan: Aaaco 0994 L Cross Objection 292/Del/09 (In Ita No. 3464/Del/2009) A.Y. 2001-02 M/S Oj Securities P Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 13(4) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sri Somil Aggarwal, Adv
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ng satisfied that there is prima facie escapement of income, recorded reasons for reopening of assessment. He relied on the following case laws. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and Another (SC) 224 ITR 362 Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) Pvt.Ltd. 208 ITR 266 He prayed that the reopening be upheld. He also made submissions on merits by relying on the order of the A.O. 5. After hearing rival submission we find the reasons recorded are as follows. “The Investigation Wing, New Delhi has sent a detailed information regarding entry operators and beneficiaries. The list of beneficiaries consists of the na…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…bsequent 7 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling System Pvt. Ltd. information is 'definite, specified and reliable. Sufficiency of reasons for formation of belief is not for the court to judge. Reassessment notices are valid. [Applied/followed in- 208 ITR 196 (RAJ) : 208 ITR 266 (DEL): 209 ITR 01 (BOM) :209 ITR 135(BOM): Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 211 ITR 447 (SC): 214 ITR 669 (RAJ) : 221 ITR 538 (SC) :226 ITR 352 (GUH): 237 1TR 549 (BOM):248 ITR 493 (P&H) :ITO VS Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. 217 ITR 597 (SC) :253 ITR 83 (DEL) 257 ITR 481 (Guj)] It has been held in a number of judicial pronouncemen…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…horities below and reiterated the observation made by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ITO Vs Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 " Midland Fruit & Vegetable Products (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (1994) 208 ITR 266 (Delhi) 14. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the information received from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, New Delhi. The AO himself admitted at page n…

Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) v. CIT (208 ITR 266) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax