Narayanappa v. CIT

63 ITR 219Supreme Court of India1967#503 most cited

What is Narayanappa v. CIT authority for?

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narayanappa v. CIT · 63 ITR 219 · section 153D · administrative act · quasi-judicial act · approval from higher authority · opportunity of hearing · JCIT approval · judicial scrutiny · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153D
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 43(3)section 147(a)section 151(1)section 158bbkelvinatorsection 153bwithin four yearssection 158bcsection 151(2)live linksection 158bg

Judgments citing Narayanappa v. CIT

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. PAN No. AAEFP 8206 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by : Ms. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…f failure fully and truly to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information”. u. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the…

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

…Hewlett Packard (supra) observed as under: “12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We are dealing with a reference to a larger bench where we have been called upon to decide the questions formulated by a Division (2010) 320 ITR 561 (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (1999) 236 ITR 0034 (SC) Bench of this Court. The first two questions revolve around the issue whether the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy (supra) has laid down the correct law. We must, therefore, refer to the decision in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy (supra). This was a case where the Tribunal had interfered…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…that ‘Reason to believe’ does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, and that, the belief must be held in good faith. He also submitted that, it cannot be merely a pretence as held in case of S. Narayanappa v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 219 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the words ‘reason to believe’ suggest that, the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour as held in case of Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC reported in [197…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…s stronger than the expression "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. in S.Narayanappa v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219, it was noted by the apex court that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, the belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant…

Abdulvahed A. Sheikh, Legal Heirof Late Smt. Sarifaben Bikhubhai Shek, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2948/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 120(3)(a)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 282Section 54F

…sment of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1948-49, when in fact he reopened the assessment for the year 1949-50, being an invalid notice, the ITO had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment of the assessee for the year 1949-50. In S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), at page 222, their Lordships pointed out that the proceeding for assessment or reassessment under s. 34(1)(a) started with the issue of a notice and it was only after the service of the notice that the assessee, whose income was sought to be assessed or reassessed, became a party to those proceedings. The earlier stages of the proceeding for…

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…,360/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec. 147 of the I.T.Act." 3. You may however, note that recording of reasons, issue of notices, etc. are of administrative matter and the same is not required to be disclosed to the assessee [S. Narayanappa (63 ITR 219)(SC)]. However, it is to be noted that the real intent behind providing the reasons recorded to the assessee is to facilitate in contesting the matter during the course of reassessment proceedings and not to use it in raising objections in order to stop the due process of law. 4. Without prejudice to the above, you are hereby required to furnish t…

Azizur Rahman Faizur Rahman, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1646/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Azizur Rahman Faizur Rahman Ito- 17(1)(3) बिाम/ City House, Ground Floor, 55 116, Aaykar Bhavan Maruti Lane, D. N. Road, Fort, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aespr-6467-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Pramod Kumar Parida– Ld Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar- Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 17/01/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 27/12/2016 On Certain Grounds. In Ground No.1, The Assessee Has Challenged The Reassessment Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao & The Ground Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida– Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Azizur Rahman Faizur Rahman ITO- 17(1)(3) बिाम/ City House, Ground Floor, 55 116, Aaykar Bhavan Maruti Lane, D. N. Road, Fort, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/GIR No. AESPR-6467-…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…he belief required by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 49. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the b…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…he belief required by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 49. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the b…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

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

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…the belief required by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 23. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…urt can always examine this aspect though the declaration or ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 15 of 40 sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 18. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…urt can always examine this aspect though the declaration or ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 15 of 40 sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 18. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 held as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the…

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…cussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…cussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked…

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…cussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a case one where the initial return was picked…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…bove judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…bove judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…bove judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…bove judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings…