(P.) Ltd. v. ITO

221 ITR 538Supreme Court of India1996#829 most cited

What is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO · Section 148 notice · Section 151 sanction · specified authority approval · mechanical reopening of assessment · harassment of assessee · income escaping assessment · procedural check · old regime Section 151 · within four years

Also reported as

87 Taxmann 3159 SCC 534

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 147Section 148ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 149Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 151(i)section 148a(a)within four yearssection 151(ii)section 148 noticesection 3(1)section 151(2)section 151(1)sanctioning authorityorder under section 148a(d)specified authorityincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( 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 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…count 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 under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, then the e…

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 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…count 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 under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, then the e…

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 137/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)

…count 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 under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, then the e…

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 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…count 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 under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, then the e…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…was held to be justified. Further, at this stage, the test is not as to whether there has been any escapement of income, but whether there exist "reasons to believe" that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.[Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (Supreme Court), Experion Developers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi).Therefore, the emphasis of the ld CIT(Appeal) on the information in the case of Mr Ashok Majumdar is unwarranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…was held to be justified. Further, at this stage, the test is not as to whether there has been any escapement of income, but whether there exist "reasons to believe" that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.[Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (Supreme Court), Experion Developers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi).Therefore, the emphasis of the ld CIT(Appeal) on the information in the case of Mr Ashok Majumdar is unwarranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…was held to be justified. Further, at this stage, the test is not as to whether there has been any escapement of income, but whether there exist "reasons to believe" that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.[Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (Supreme Court), Experion Developers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi).Therefore, the emphasis of the ld CIT(Appeal) on the information in the case of Mr Ashok Majumdar is unwarranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…s pending for such assessment. 8.8 Further, it is the duty of the assesse to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the AO, could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be Treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true 11 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mu…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…is pending for such assessment. 8.8 Further, it is the duty of the assesse to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the AO, could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be Treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true disclosure of all materia…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…s pending for such assessment. 8.8 Further, it is the duty of the assesse to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the AO, could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be Treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true 11 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mu…

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

…ason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. In the matter of Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538/87 Taxman 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "The Income-tax Officer can issue notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961, proposing to reopen an assessment only where he has reason to believe that on account of either the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of the omission…

Sumati Kumar Lunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 457/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia Vs. I.T.O Ward 36(4), Kolkata Pan: Aavpl 7736 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…hat item will not be "Information" for re-opening. The matter has been elucidated and explained in detail as - Information proper - At the time of reopening, assessing officer is not required to establish escapement of income. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538&Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662. Hon'ble Courts have also held that what is necessary to re-open an assessment is not the final verdict but a prima facie reason - Once such a reason is recorded by the Assessing Authority, he assumes jurisdiction to issue notice u/s148 - Mere fact that for earlier assessment years…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 947/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s J.K. Enterprises Ward-2, Choburja Bazar, Old Hospital Road, Bharatpur. Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHBPG 8155 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwa…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 946/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s J.K. Enterprises Ward-2, Choburja Bazar, Old Hospital Road, Bharatpur. Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHBPG 8155 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwa…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ra 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened und…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ra 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened und…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

ITA 334/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 334/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 cuke The ACIT, M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Vs. Circle- 6, Development & Investment Corporation Jaipur. Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR4695J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 4/JP/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 334/JP/2016) fu/kZkj.k…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Dixit Processors, ITO-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. PAN No. AAEFD1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Dr. P. Daniel, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR Date of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 31/01/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Akash Purochem Pvt. ITO-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 PAN No. AACCA9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-14(1)(1) M/s Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4th floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 PAN No. AACCA9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11…

Income Tax Officer-10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Idm Agro Bio Tech Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5805/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…usively prove the escapement, is not the concern at this stage. The AO relied on the following cases; • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) • Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Limited (1991) 191 ITR 66 (SC) • Sri Krishna Private Limited (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) • Information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases- notice issued u/s 148 valid. (Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd vs ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 • Information from Investigation Wing- notice 148 issued on the basis of such letter is valid. AGR Investment Ltd vsAddl. CIT (Del) 333 ITR 146 Shafcnar Buucon P LW Vs ITO…