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 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 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 132 Section 143(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

borrowed satisfaction live link section 151(1)tangible material material facts necessary for assessment section 148(2)kelvinator non application of mind reason to believe reopening of assessment escapement of income mere change of opinion

Judgments citing PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. R.L. Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 5214/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…the assessment in the case of the assessee-company. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT 319 ITR 221, CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 and PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. 13 ITA.No.893/Del./2015 & ITA.No.5214/Del./2016 M/s. R.L. Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that sufficient material is available on record to justify reopening of the assessment. 7. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that reopeni…

Rl Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 893/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Bhagwan Chintu Mhatre, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2758/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Nu Power Renewables (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 94 taxmann.com 29 (Bombay); 5 ITA No. 2758/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 ii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.). 3.2 On the merits of addition the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has sold the plot to M/s. Iconic Realtors Ltd. and not to M/s. Jai Corp Group/Mr. Madan Kolambekar. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There is no evidence on record that the amount of Rs.23,40,000/- was receiv…

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

…stigation Wing of the Department and recording of reasons without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and without tangible material is invalid :- 6 PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5. (ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677. (iii) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 338 ITR 51. (iv) CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285. (v) India Terminal Connector Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT, 52 SOT 13. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in a mechanical manner has given approval for issue of notice u/s 151(2) and there…

Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…nt. Therefore, on this reason alone, the reopening of the assessment is illegal and bad in law. We rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. GANDG Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 and Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. The A.O. had based his belief on the fact that assessee had not filed any 11 ITA.No.2749/Del./2018 Shri Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad. return, due to which, there were escapement of income on account of sale of immovable property. The assessee, however, filed original return within time and produced the Certificate from Tehsildar to show that it was no…

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 132/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri N.K.Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Del/2018 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income E-104, Greater Kailash Enclave, Tax, Part-I, Circle-19(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. [Pan: Aaecp 6502F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Tripathy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita Tripathy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

…bmitted that there is no date in the reasons recorded which shows casual approach of the AO while recording the reasons. The ld. AR submitted that as per decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) 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 AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the r…

Swati Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…at he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The order of the Tribunal was proper. No question of law arose.” 7.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del.) has held as under : “For the assesses rear 2004-05, the assessee was assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in November, 2004. Based on the information received from the Director (Investigation) that the assessee had received accommodation entries, notice under section 148 was issued in March, 2011 after taking approv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Zeco Aircon Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 5231/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2005-06 Dcit, Circle- 18(1), Zeco Aircon Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Dda, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Vs. Near Sindhi School, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…action and there is absence of live link between the reopening of the assessment and material on record. Referring to various decisions including the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677, Pr.CIT vs. G&G Pharma reported in 384 ITR 147, Pr.CIT vs. Sabh Infrastructure reported in 398 ITR 19 and Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above decisions has categorically held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rt in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 10 329 ITR 110, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. G & Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 and Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajiv Agarwal & Ors. vs. ACIT reported in 395 ITR 255 to the proposition that where the reopening is based on suspicion without any tangible supportive material the reassessment was held to be unsustainable in law. 14. On the point of CCM modification not resultin…

Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1391/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 25, 2191/62, Gurudwara Road, New Delhi. Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle- 25, 2191/62, Gurudwara Road, New Delhi. Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. PAN : AADCB7016R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, CA Department by : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 13-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 27-06-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2018 of the CIT(A)- 29…

Plb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1390/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Plb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 25, 249-250, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 PLB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle- 25, 249-250, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAECP8129L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, CA Department by : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 13-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 27-06-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2018 of the CIT(A)…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11] The I.T.O Vs. M/S S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Ward 22(1) A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaics 7280 H Co No. 302/Del/2015 [A/O Ita No. 1647/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I Ward 22(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaics 7280 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari – Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] The I.T.O Vs. M/s S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Ward 22(1) A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAICS 7280 H CO No. 302/DEL/2015 [A/o ITA No. 1647/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s S.K. Caterers Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O A-47, Mayapuri, Phase - I Ward 22(1) New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAICS 7280 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2018 Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv Re…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…records which may justify the instant reopening action u/s 148 of the Act. Following case laws are relied by Ld. AR to challenge reopening action u/s 148: i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147 ii) Hon’ble Delhi Hihg Court in Meenakshi Overseas 395 ITR 677; iii) Hon’ble Delhi high court in RMG Polyvinyl 396 ITR 5 ; iv) Hon’ble Delhi high court Sabh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 3.1 It was specifically pleaded that merely reopening on basis of directions of Investigation Wing cannot justify the reopening action made u/s 148 of the Act which requires independent application of mind. Further it was highl…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/s Gorika Investment and Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531SG Ward-10(2), Complex, DC Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACG2462K Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv., & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.02.2018…

M/S Deepraj Hospital P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 41/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…n. 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO’s action of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, by holding such action to be in accordance with law. Relying on ‘PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd.’, 154 DTR 100 (Del.), the ld. Counsel has contended that mere reliance on the information received, without having acted thereon before recording the reasons, showing non-application of mind on the part of the AO, is unsustainable in law. The ld. Counsel has also placed on reliance on ‘Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT’, order dated 25.9.2017, passed by the Ho…

M/S Charan Singh Ice & Storage P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

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

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…On what basis such an addition was made has not been explained. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that no error was committed by the ITAT in holding that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law.” 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 to believe that income has escaped…

Manoj Kumar Jain, Agra vs. ITO-1(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 277/AGR/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jainassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 147

…sons were recorded without any application of mind, merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, i.e., just on borrowed satisfaction. Reliance has been place on "Principal 5 CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd.", 154 DTR 100 (Del) and "Mayank Mittal vs. ITO", ITA No.276/Agra/2016, order dated 26.04.2018 (ITAT Agra). 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, has stated that the information received by the AO from the Investigation Wing of the Department was new and fresh evidence, on which, the AO could have drawn an inference and could have formed a prima facie opinion…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. S M Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…g decisions : i. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bombay); ii. Nirmal Bang Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 67 taxmann.com 57 (Bombay); iii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 4.1 The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of proforma for obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax at pages 68 and 69 of the paper book would show that the Assessing Officer in row no. 11 against „reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment‟ has mentioned that the reason for reopening assessment as Appraisal Repo…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Juliet Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known As Juliet Products Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 5975/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…3 The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer [338 ITR Assessment Year 2009-10 51] which has subsequently been followed by same court in PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677]. However, we note that both the cases addressed a situation where reassessment proceedings were triggered after four years from the end of relevant AY. Further, in those cases, independent investigation of alleged facts by Ld. AO was missing. Further, a perusal of judgment rendered in Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [supra] shows that there the Hon’…