PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677High Court2017#149 most cited

What is PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

471

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. · Section 148 · Section 147 · reopening of assessment · reason to believe · independent application of mind · borrowed satisfaction · investigation report · reassessment proceedings invalid · non application of mind · escapement of income

Also reported as

82 Taxmann.com 300

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 68Section 151Section 142(1)Section 132Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

borrowed satisfactionlive linksection 151(1)tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 148(2)kelvinatornon application of mindreason to believereopening of assessmentescapement of incomemere change of opinion

Judgments citing PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT Khandwa, Khandwa vs. M/S Rajrajeshwar Cotton Corporation, Sendhwa

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

ITA 573/IND/2019[2011`-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…original proceedings had not rightly been done by then AO. 4.8 Various judicial authorities had also given their decision on the same issue which are reproduced hereunder:- (i) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd 395 ITR 677 (Del) had held that it the reasons failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and formation of the reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment then, it would amount to borrowed satisfaction and It has to be presumed [hat there 1S no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the…

ITO, Ward- 21(4), New Delhi vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H Co No.66/Del/2018 (Ita No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2017 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection. Co No.66/Del/2018 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Decision Of The Ld. Cit (A) In The Case Of Surender Kumar Jain (S. K. Jain) Wherein, It Is Held That Jain Brothers Are Equally Involved In The Accommodation Entry Business & Maintain The Documents & Record. " 2. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 2,40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Ratio Decidendi In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014), 2 Itr-Ol-68 & Pcit-7 Vs. Bikram Singh In It A No. 55/2017 Dated 25/08/2017 On Identical Issue Of Addition As Unexplained Share Capital U/S 68 Of The It Act. 3 The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add & Alter Any Fresh Grounds(S) Of Appealand/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Ground(S) Of Appeal."

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

…ched that income has escaped assessment, mere reproduction of information is not sufficient to meet the requirement of section 147 of the Act. The ld. AR has relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas, 395 ITR 677 (Del) and other judgements. 5 CO No.66/Del/2018 5. The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, vehemently supporting the action of the AO initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, drew our attention to the reasons recorded by the AO on 17.03.2016 available at pages 34-48 of the assessee’s paper book…

Noble Tradelink Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Ward 1(5), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 302/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 68

…al and bad in law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases: 1. Reynolds Shirting Ltd. vs ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 554 (Bom.- HC. 2. Kantibhai Dharmashibhai Narola vs ACIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj) 3. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del. H.C.) 7 M/S. NOBLE TRADELINK PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR 4. Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (2019) 199 TTJ 966 (Jaipur Trib) 5. CIT &Anr. Vs Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (2010) 322 ITR 525 (Ker.) 6. G.K. Consultants Ltd. VS ITO (ITA No.1502/Del/2013 dated 27- 06-2014 (Del. Trib) ACIT vs Adhunik Cement Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 25 (Kol-Trib)…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 161/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke ACIT, Central Circle- M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd. 2, Jaipur Vs. 270 to 272 & 276, Johari Bazar, Jaipur-302003. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 1827 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 178/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2…

ITO Ward - 10(4), New Delhi vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5143/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcs7132B

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…2010-11 (65- 67 P/B), ITR of investor company for A.Y. 2009-10 (74 P/B). 10. He also relied following judgments in support of his submissions; 1. As for first proposition he relied on the following judgments/ order; a. Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd 395 ITR 677 b. Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Ployvinyl (I) Ltd 396 ITR 5 ITO Vs Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd c. Pr. CIT Vs. G &G Pharma India Ltd 384 ITR 147 d. Karan Khurana Vs. ITO, ITA NO. 1783/Del/2019 AY 2010-11 2. As for second proposition he relied on the following judgments/ order:- a. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd Vs. ITO 136 taxmann.com 139 (Gujarat) 3. As for third prop…

Sharad Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…of income filed and other evidence(s) available on record whereas these taxpayers turned out to be non filers only. Such non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supporti…

Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 255/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…of income filed and other evidence(s) available on record whereas these taxpayers turned out to be non filers only. Such non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supporti…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2010-11) Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ G-5, Pariseema Complex, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C. Circle-2(1)(1), G. Road, Ahmedabad - Ahmedabad - 380015 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG6992L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2010-11) Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ G-5, Pariseema Complex, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C. Circle-2(1)(1), G. Road, Ahmedabad - Ahmedabad - 380015 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG6992L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPP0130D Appellant .. Respondent CO No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. DCIT, CC-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira…

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

ITA 82/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…geable to tax had escaped assessment is found amiss, the reopening of the assessment cannot be held to be justified. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). In the aforesaid case, the Hon‟ble High Court observed that the A.O had proceeded to send a notice u/s 147/148 of the Act solely on the basis of information received from the DIT(Inv.). It was noticed by the High Court that after writing about the nature of the impugned accommodation entry and without mentioning the nature of transaction…

Sukhdeo Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 454/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 132Section 148

…of income filed and other evidence(s) available on record whereas these taxpayers turned out to be non filers only. Such non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supporti…

Sukhdeo Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 453/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 132Section 148

…of income filed and other evidence(s) available on record whereas these taxpayers turned out to be non filers only. Such non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supporti…

Sanjay Sadashiv Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 452/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 132Section 148

…of income filed and other evidence(s) available on record whereas these taxpayers turned out to be non filers only. Such non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supporti…

Meghana Kailash Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1804/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/H of Lat Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1797/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1793/PUN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…

Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1791/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/H of Late Devi K. Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1801/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/H of Lat Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Sangli

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1798/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 200

…. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash…