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 366,470 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.

Smt. Radhika Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2020/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ation wing report does not speak about any factual issues but legal advice for initiating the reassessment proceedings, which is not permitted under the law. 19. He relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Meenakshi overseas Ltd (395 ITR 677) and Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) to show that there is no application of mind by the learned assessing officer, nothing more than DDIT report is recorded in the reasons. He further referred to the decision of CIT V Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 and submitted that there should be a live link between the reasons recorded. He…

Smt. Radhika Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2019/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ation wing report does not speak about any factual issues but legal advice for initiating the reassessment proceedings, which is not permitted under the law. 19. He relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Meenakshi overseas Ltd (395 ITR 677) and Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) to show that there is no application of mind by the learned assessing officer, nothing more than DDIT report is recorded in the reasons. He further referred to the decision of CIT V Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 and submitted that there should be a live link between the reasons recorded. He…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of Assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2144/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aaacl-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aaacl-5419R ( Cross Objector ) ( Department )

For Appellant: S/Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 DCIT, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/s. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd PAN: AADCK 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [ITA No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/s. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT, C.C -2(1), Kolkata PAN: AADCK 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ACIT, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/s. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd PAN: AAACL-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [ITA No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/s. Liza Vincom Pvt. L…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…ead to a conclusion of the escapement of income and they are merely presumptuous in nature. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the finding of the Hon’ble Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under: “23. Thus, the crucial link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a readin…

Ratan Pal Kain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1273/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 148

…y by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case." ii) 395 ITR 677 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO "36. 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 16 ITA No.-1273/Del/2018 to beli…

Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aligarh

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nt in the case of the assessee. The conclusion of the AO on the basis of general nature of information received by him, indeed a borrowed satisfaction. The Ld. AR relied on Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 10. “PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd.”, 395 ITR 677, where it was held that if 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 that there is no independent application of mind by the 16 AO to the tangible material which for…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Jaico Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, Of Income Tax, 37Th B Cross, Vs. 28Th Main, 9Th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan: Aabcj8421G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2008-09 M/s. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, of Income Tax, 37th B Cross, Vs. 28th Main, 9th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: AABCJ8421G APPELLANT RESPONDENT & C.O. No. 106/Bang/2018 (in ITA No. 1444/Bang/2018) Assessment Year : 2008-09 (By Assessee) Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 03.04.20…

Sri Udit Kumar Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ctional fact necessary to usurp jurisdiction to reopen the regular assessment cannot be invoked by the AO. For the said proposition, the Ld. AR drew our attention to following case laws: 3 Shri Udit Kumar Dugar, AY 2012-13 i) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd. 395 ITR 677(Del.) (referred to para 19 till para 37). ii) DCIT Vs. Greal Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.660/Kol/2011 (referred to page 10 para 11) iii) Shri Raj Kumar Goel Vs. ITO ITA No.1028/Kol/2017 (referred to page 5-8 para 11) (iv) Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT ITA Nos. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 (page 7 para 12 to 16) v) PCIT Vs. Shodiman…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…income. Without doing so, the jurisdictional fact necessary to usurp jurisdiction to reopen the regular assessment cannot be made by the AO. For the said proposition, the Ld. AR drew our attention to following case laws : - PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd., 395 ITR 677(Del.) - PCIT Vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., 236 Taxman 494 (Del) - PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd., 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bom) - CIT VsParamjitKaur, 168 Taxman 39 (P&H HC) - Pr.CITVs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd, 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del HC) - CIT VsInsceticides (India) Ltd, 357 ITR 330 (Del HC) - CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del HC…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…s based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that t…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…s based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that t…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…s based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that t…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…s based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), it was held that t…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…Court in the case of G & G Pharma India Limited 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and 6 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. PCIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs., RMG Poly vinyl 396 ITR 5 (Del.). He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and no particulars of credit have been mentioned in the reasons. The reasons also did not say if assessment have already been framed under section 143(3). Even the nature of the credit is not mentioned in the reasons. No particulars of accom…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…Court in the case of G & G Pharma India Limited 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and 6 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. PCIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs., RMG Poly vinyl 396 ITR 5 (Del.). He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and no particulars of credit have been mentioned in the reasons. The reasons also did not say if assessment have already been framed under section 143(3). Even the nature of the credit is not mentioned in the reasons. No particulars of accom…

Senior Infrabuild P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5977/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. C.L. SHARMA, ADVFor Respondent: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SENIOR INFRABUILD P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-23(1), B-3/56B, LAWRENCE ROAD, C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI-2 KESHAV PURAM, NEW DELHI – 35 (PAN: AAKCS2019Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. C.L. SHARMA, ADV. Department by : SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.7.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- i) That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 of Inc…

Sbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7791/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel and Shri Rajesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Additional CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…i). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that it is a case where the original return was accepted under Section 143(1) and there was no regular assessment under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer had received the specific information from DIT(Investigation) that on search in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group of cases, New Delhi, it wa…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Randeep Investment (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4365/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…garding alleged non-filing of the return and the other regarding the extent of the so-called accommodation entries. 12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No.69212016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) (395 ITR 677), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the reopening of the assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information…

M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…garding alleged non-filing of the return and the other regarding the extent of the so-called accommodation entries. 12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No.69212016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) (395 ITR 677), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the reopening of the assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4861/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income-tax Officer, vs. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ward 13(12), New Delhi. E-292, IInd Floor, Old Double Storey Lane, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. PAN-AABCJ6528Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. D.C. Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 of…