Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT

366 ITR 115High Court2014#4098 most cited

What is Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT authority for?

Proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are invalid if there is no specific material establishing escaped income for the assessment year in question, and cannot be used to cover a lost opportunity to frame an assessment under Section 143(3).

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Mohan Gupta HUF v CIT · Section 147 · Section 143(3) · reassessment · escaped income · belief of escaped income · loss of opportunity to frame assessment · bad in law

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 4(1)section 61section 90(1)section 39tax residency certificatesection 5(2)commercial rightsroyalty incomeassistant directorsection 9(1)(vi)beneficial owner

Judgments citing Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…aged in section 147 of the Act. In this regard, reliance was on following judicial precedents - Das Friends Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2006] 280 ITR 77 (Allahabad), and Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – XI: [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Delhi)[28-01-2014] 10.5. He submitted that in the absence of specific material showing/establishing escaped income for the Assessment Year 2003-04, no belief could have been formed about the escaped income merely on the basis of assessment of Assessment Year 2002-03. Thus, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the As…

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…aged in section 147 of the Act. In this regard, reliance was on following judicial precedents - Das Friends Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2006] 280 ITR 77 (Allahabad), and Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – XI: [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Delhi)[28-01-2014] 10.5. He submitted that in the absence of specific material showing/establishing escaped income for the Assessment Year 2003-04, no belief could have been formed about the escaped income merely on the basis of assessment of Assessment Year 2002-03. Thus, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the As…

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…aged in section 147 of the Act. In this regard, reliance was on following judicial precedents - Das Friends Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2006] 280 ITR 77 (Allahabad), and Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – XI: [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Delhi)[28-01-2014] 10.5. He submitted that in the absence of specific material showing/establishing escaped income for the Assessment Year 2003-04, no belief could have been formed about the escaped income merely on the basis of assessment of Assessment Year 2002-03. Thus, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the As…

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’B’, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 25/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2005-06. cuke M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut The ACIT, Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vs. Circle-6, Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.AABCR 8312 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri PC Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reven…

SGDC INDIA P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…(supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dictum in Orient Craft Ltd. Again in a decision dated 28th January 2015 in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax-XI (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) the Court reiterated the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. Thirdly, the Court finds that the questions framed for consideration by the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. as set out in para 1 of the said judgment did not pertain to reopening of an assessment under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The four questions referred to the Full Bench were…

SGDC INDIA P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…(supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dictum in Orient Craft Ltd. Again in a decision dated 28th January 2015 in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax-XI (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) the Court reiterated the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. Thirdly, the Court finds that the questions framed for consideration by the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. as set out in para 1 of the said judgment did not pertain to reopening of an assessment under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The four questions referred to the Full Bench were…

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…Vs Orient Craft Ltd. in SLP CC No. 1589/2013 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del.) " Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 023 (Del.) " Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 343 ITR 141 (Del.) " NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 346 ITR 361 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 415/2…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/933/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/935/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 vs. JAGDISH PRASHAD GUPTA

ITA/424/2016HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/787/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/1535/2010HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/711/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/695/2010HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…om liability to pay the licence fee. Mr Aggarwal submitted that the essential requirement of Section 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). Mr. Aggarwal maintained that the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, of the ITAT, does not decide all the aspects remitted to it by the Court by the order dated 11th December, 2008. In particular, the validity of the reopening of the assessments under Section 147…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3 vs. KSA CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/522/2016HC Delhi19 May 2017

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

Section 148

…the consequential judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 taxman 312 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Del) and Commissioner of Income tax v. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536 (Del) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue on 20th January, 2014. 16. In reply, Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that although the Petitioner may have disclosed…

JUST TEXTILES LTD,AMBERNATH vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…485)(Delhi) • Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) • Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) • CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) • Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.) • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT 366 ITR 115(Delhi) • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536(Delhi) • Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. J. P. Janjid 5 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., (2014) 225 Taxman 81(Mag.) (Bom) 9. It was also contended by learned AR that subsequently Assessing Officer cannot improve upon the reasons which were originally communicated to the assessee. Our attenti…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

ITA/761/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 148

…the consequential judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 taxman 312 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Del) and Commissioner of Income tax v. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536 (Del) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue on 20th January, 2014. 16. In reply, Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that although the Petitioner may have disclosed…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DELHI-XXI vs. SUBHASH SHARMA

ITA/519/2016HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 148

…the consequential judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 taxman 312 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 366 ITR 115 (Del) and Commissioner of Income tax v. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536 (Del) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue on 20th January, 2014. 16. In reply, Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that although the Petitioner may have disclosed…

LUPIN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…(supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dictum in Orient Craft Ltd. Again in a decision dated 28th January 2015 in Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax-XI (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) the Court reiterated the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. Thirdly, the Court finds that the questions framed for consideration by the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. as set out in para 1 of the said judgment did not pertain to reopening of an assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act. The four questions referred to the Full Bench were a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MOHAN GUPTA, HUF, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5835/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 31(1) Vs. Mohan Gupta, Huf Room No.185 A 502, Nirmal Tower C.R.Bldg., I.P.Estate 26, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aagpg 9057 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, C.A

…008-09 Mohan Gupta, HUF, New Delhi by concurring with the Ld.CIT(A) that the profit in question can be taxed only under the head ‘income from capital gains’ and not as ‘income from business’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case reported in 366 ITR 115 (Del) for the A.Y. 2005-06 vide judgement dated 28th January, 2014, at para 4 and 5 had held as follows. “4. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08, from which the reassessment arose, after considering in detail the nature and frequency of the sale and purchase of shares by the assessee concluded that the activi…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2