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.

How many judgments cite PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.?

471 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 151, Section 142(1).

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677)

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 1796/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…

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1795/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…

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1790/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2006-07

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…

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 572/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…Delhi) to contend that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO should make it clear as to what tangible material was considered by the Ld. AO. Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 was relied to submit that in a similar case where information from DIT(Investigation) was relied for reassessment Hon’ble High Court had not considered it sufficient for reopening assessment. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the case law relied by the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss these grounds of appeal with regard to invoking jurisdiction were distingui…

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 571/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…Delhi) to contend that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO should make it clear as to what tangible material was considered by the Ld. AO. Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 was relied to submit that in a similar case where information from DIT(Investigation) was relied for reassessment Hon’ble High Court had not considered it sufficient for reopening assessment. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the case law relied by the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss these grounds of appeal with regard to invoking jurisdiction were distingui…

Brijesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7437/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…elied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006-07. Thereafter, shares of M/s Swen television Ltd. were split into the face value of Rs.5/- each, Further, bonus shares in…

Ganesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5813/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…elied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006-07. Thereafter, shares of M/s Swen television Ltd. were split into the face value of Rs.5/- each, Further, bonus shares in…

Rc Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5711/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…elied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006-07. Thereafter, shares of M/s Swen television Ltd. were split into the face value of Rs.5/- each, Further, bonus shares in…

Amit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…elied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006-07. Thereafter, shares of M/s Swen television Ltd. were split into the face value of Rs.5/- each, Further, bonus shares in…

Bithal Nath Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5474/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…elied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006-07. Thereafter, shares of M/s Swen television Ltd. were split into the face value of Rs.5/- each, Further, bonus shares in…

Uma Strips Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3284/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Uma Strips Ltd., Vs Dcit, Bn-48, East Shalimar Bagh, Circle-27(1), New Delhi-110088 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu2078B Assessee By : Sh. Upwan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. K. A. Manu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Upwan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. A. Manu, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677, G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147, Sabh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr. CIT Vs. RMC Potyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 wherein the Delhi High Court has held that observations of the Investigation Wing should not be treated as conclusions without the AO independently verifying the same, in the absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of asses…

Nadeem Hasan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 445/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.445/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Nadeem Hasan Ito, 159, Meena Bazar, Vs. Ward 46(4) Jama Masjid, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Accph8788G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…lication of mind by the AO, the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contention: 1. PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.); 2. Amrik Singh vs. ITO 159 ITD 329 (Asr.); 3. Bahadur Singh Sizwati vs. ITO 68 SOT 197 (Del.); 4. Raj Kumar Duggar (HUF) vs. ITO 12 DTR 16 (Del.). 7. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the Ld. PCIT who has accorded his approval u/s 151 of the Act acted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Ld. Counsel submits that the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…rom wing K admitted to be entry operator giving cheques against cash belief arrived at based on statement, AO arrived at belief of paper cos , the Court held information insufficient, without further enquiry as to existence of cos. In MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P LTD 395 ITR 677 DEL observed that mere suspicion without objective material and further enquiry reason to believe cannot be arrived on information. it will be borrowed satisfaction. In NU POWER OWER RENEWABLES P LTD 94 TAXMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangibl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…rom wing K admitted to be entry operator giving cheques against cash belief arrived at based on statement, AO arrived at belief of paper cos , the Court held information insufficient, without further enquiry as to existence of cos. In MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P LTD 395 ITR 677 DEL observed that mere suspicion without objective material and further enquiry reason to believe cannot be arrived on information. it will be borrowed satisfaction. In NU POWER OWER RENEWABLES P LTD 94 TAXMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangibl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…rom wing K admitted to be entry operator giving cheques against cash belief arrived at based on statement, AO arrived at belief of paper cos , the Court held information insufficient, without further enquiry as to existence of cos. In MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P LTD 395 ITR 677 DEL observed that mere suspicion without objective material and further enquiry reason to believe cannot be arrived on information. it will be borrowed satisfaction. In NU POWER OWER RENEWABLES P LTD 94 TAXMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangibl…

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8757/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.8757/DDN/2019 A.Y. 2011-2012 M/s. ANM Fincap (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Shop No.9, Plot Ward – 1 (1), No.51, Block-C, vs. Room No.380A, Mahendru Enclave, C.R. Building, Near Hans Cinema, Delhi – 110 033 New Delhi – 110 002. PAN AAACA9489Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CA For Revenue : Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M. This appeal filed…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (i) Gateway leasing (P) Ltd - 426 ITR 228 (Bom) (ii) Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd- 422 ITR 337 (Born) (iii) Skyview consultants (P) Ltd - 423 ITR 677 (Del) Pages - 83-127 (PB-Vol.1) (iv) Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd - 395 ITR 677 (Del) (v) SFIL Stock Broking - 325 ITR 285 7.4 Conditions stipulated in proviso to section 147 are not complied with by the AO while reopening the assessment. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 10-112017 relating to AY 2010-11. Thus, the assessment was completed after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e 20…

Udesh Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 7579/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Udesh Sharma, Vs. Ito, Village & Post Ward-2(1), Sadarpur, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Czbps8441K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law”. 6.6 The jurisdictional High Court again in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, 395 ITR 677 dealt identical with the issue has held as under: “In the present case, as already noticed, the reasons to believe contain not the reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assess…

Technicon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 465/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Technicon Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Sanjivsapra& Associates Circle-25(1), Llp, Cas, C-763, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aacct7296C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

…the re-opening itself. 3.1 The Assessee also relied upon various judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in support of its case such as in the cases of PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (396 ITR 5)and Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd (395 ITR 677), etc and raised the contention that the reopening was done onthe basis ofborrowed satisfaction without applying independent mind and even otherwisethe reopening was not based upon any material except the information received from the office of the ADCIT, Investigation and therefore the same is invalid and void. 3.2 Though the Ld. Commissioner co…

Shri Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 272/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain Shop No.9, Kamala Super Bazar, Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Pan : Aacch4665D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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…

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

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

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

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

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Brijesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-31(4), New Delhi

Ganesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 31(4), New Delhi

Rc Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

Amit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

Bithal Nath Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

Uma Strips Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi

Nadeem Hasan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

Udesh Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

Technicon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

Shri Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur (Cg)