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.

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…. b) CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd (2015) 128 DTR 217 (Delhi)(HC) c) Pr. CIT v G. Pharma India Ltd.[2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) (H C) d) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.)(HC) e) CIT v/s Meenakshi Oversea's Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677(Del) (HC) f) CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.)(HC) 1.2 The information received from other authority cannot be considered as material for reopening:- 1. In view of submission made hereinabove, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material, which was now in possession of ld. AO while initiating the re-a…

Sh. Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal 171, Model Town Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jatin Abbi the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 689/CHD/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The ACIT, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, VS Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: BMCPK7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख…

Sobhin Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 4023/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…ITA No.4023/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 4023/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 SOBHIN BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED KN/B-11, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PAN No.AAKCS6251Q अपीलार्थी Appellant Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Ward 24(1), C.R. Building, Delhi. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by Shri Suresh K. Gupta, Advocate Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of hearing: 20.08.2025 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement on 12.09.2025 आदेश…

Terai Tea Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 706/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…totally vague, arbitrary, scanty, suspicious, doubtful and ambiguous and, therefore, notice u/s.148 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 3.9.2016 declaring total income at Rs.41,24,080/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 29.9.2016 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened after receiving information that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.50,60,460/- during the previous year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17 from M/s. Instyle Commercial Pvt Ltd., According…

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ITR 110 (Delhi). • Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 1.20 Therefore, within the purview of the undisputed facts discussed above and the settled law of the land, it has been proven beyond in law being against the principle of natural justice, time-barred, without jurisdiction, application of mind, based upon the wrong assumption of facts and merely on borrowed satisfaction, and thus, this…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)

…ss that basic jurisdictional requirement was satisfied, a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the re-opening would not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Meenakshi Overseas 395 ITR 677; where AO solely on the basis of information received from investigation wing concluded that assessce was a beneficiary of entry operators, without further verification, examination or any other exercise and issued notice under section 148. Assessee challenged the notice. Held: "Apparently, reasons to believe did not contain the findings by concl…

Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd…….……………..............................……….……Appellant 7, Camac Street, Azimganj House, 1St Floor, Shakespeare Sarani, Kol- 700017. [Pan: Aacca3794N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 03, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…hat the Assessing Officer has acted as borrowed satisfaction of the investigation wing and has not recorded his own satisfaction. In defence of his argument, the ld. counsel has relied on the decision of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del), PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. reported in (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. reported in (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in t…

Aakash Developers, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1767/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e case. 4.3 He placed reliance on following decision in support of this contention: “i) ITO-vs-Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) [1976] ii) PCIT-vs-Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd., 422 ITR 337 (Bombay) [2018] iii) PCIT-vs-Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) [2017]” 4.4 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 5. Perusal of the reasons recorded reveals that the assessing officer received information from the Investigation wing stating that some incrementing ma…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 488/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Peeyush Agarwal The ITO, Vs. 197, Johari Bazar, Ward-1(5), Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKZPA9803G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. & Shri Gulshan Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CI…

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…05) 273 ITR 242 (para 24). 5 Any satisfaction recorded u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction is untenable in law. Authorities on this point are the jurisdictional High Court decisions in – a. Pro CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) b. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del) c. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Braking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) C. NO ORDER PASSED AGAINST OBJECTIONS FILED On receipt of the reasons recorded dated 25.03.2011, the assessee filed detailed objections (PB 59). The said objections have never been disposed off through a speaking…

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…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, Subh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr. CIT Vs. RMC Polyvinyl (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 22 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT absence of which the Hon’ble Court h…

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 620/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Mukesh Jain HUF 1-12A, 1st Avenue, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle-06, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADHM6397P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

…Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evation 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, Subh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr. CIT Vs. RMC Polyvinyl (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…

Sudhir Bansal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudhir Bansal 8, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Adbpb3234H

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.98/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudhir Bansal 8, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 (C.G.) PAN: ADBPB3234H ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date…