PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677High Court2017#149 most cited

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

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

471

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 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.

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीथालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रTREOR/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयंतीभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur Vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रिर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-04 vs. M/S Ganesh Ganga Insvestments Pvt Ltd

ITA/25/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…to tax has escaped assessment. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the cases of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., G and G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., (supra) in wh…

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bad in law and in this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions:  PCIT v. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom.)(HC)  PCIT v. SNG Developers Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Delhi)(HC)  PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) (HC)  PCIT vs RMG Polyvinyl Ltd ITA 29/2017 & CM 1009/2017 DATED 07/07/2017  PCIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2016) 378 ITR 351 (Delhi) (HC)  SABH Infrastructure vs ACIT WP(C) No. 1357/2016 DATED 25/09/2017  CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR…

Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ssessing Officer, the said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where reassessment was resorted to on basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry but there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate live 14 l…

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a. Vibrant Securities Pvt Ltd vs ITO (Bombay HC) (2023) (455 ITR 58) b. Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay HC) (2020) (426 ITR 228) c. PCIT vs M/s Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd. (Bombay HC) (2018) d. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (2017) (395 ITR 677) e. Harikishan Sunderlal Vimani vs DCIT (Gujarat HC) (2016) 394 ITR 146 f. PCIT vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani (Gujarat HC) (2023) 459 ITR 610 17. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer instead of initiating proceedings u/s 153A or 153C of the Act, has resorted to the provisions of section 147 of the Act, therefore, the same being not…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a. Vibrant Securities Pvt Ltd vs ITO (Bombay HC) (2023) (455 ITR 58) b. Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay HC) (2020) (426 ITR 228) c. PCIT vs M/s Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd. (Bombay HC) (2018) d. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (2017) (395 ITR 677) e. Harikishan Sunderlal Vimani vs DCIT (Gujarat HC) (2016) 394 ITR 146 f. PCIT vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani (Gujarat HC) (2023) 459 ITR 610 17. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer instead of initiating proceedings u/s 153A or 153C of the Act, has resorted to the provisions of section 147 of the Act, therefore, the same being not…

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In view of the above discussion, the reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons "to form the belief" that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening o…

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In view of the above discussion, the reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons "to form the belief" that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening o…

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In view of the above discussion, the reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons "to form the belief" that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening o…

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In view of the above discussion, the reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons "to form the belief" that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening o…

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In view of the above discussion, the reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons "to form the belief" that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening o…

Anish Garg, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

…fficer to form his opinion and record his reasons in clear and unambiguous terms and the reasons should not suffer from vagueness and should be self- explanatory. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd reported in [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del), the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power not to be lightly exercised, that it certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically, that the reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons and this is the bare minimum mandatory requirement of Section…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…report, without any independent application of of mind, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio, as has been held in the following legal decisions:  ACTT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC)  Pr. CIT. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del)  Well Trans Logistics India (P.) Lad. vs. ACTT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 72 (Def)  CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del))  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/200…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…report, without any independent application of of mind, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio, as has been held in the following legal decisions:  ACTT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC)  Pr. CIT. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del)  Well Trans Logistics India (P.) Lad. vs. ACTT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 72 (Def)  CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del))  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/200…

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 192/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. 7. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 has held that some tangible material must come to the AO for formation of belief that the income of the assessee has es…

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 191/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. 7. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 has held that some tangible material must come to the AO for formation of belief that the income of the assessee has es…

Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 190/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. 7. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 has held that some tangible material must come to the AO for formation of belief that the income of the assessee has es…

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Vinod Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv5313J Co No. 44/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 1540/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14) Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 26Section 68

…rrowed satisfaction ITA No.1540/KOL/2024& CO 44/Kol/2024 Vinod Nirman Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 by the ld. Assessing Officer. The case of the find support from the decision of Hon'ble Dehi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). Accordingly, the re- assessment proceedings as well as assessment order is hereby quashed. 09. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20. 12.2024. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Date…

M/S. Novelty Commotrade Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1166/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12

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

…ng Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. In the case in hand, the only information available to the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had done transaction of Rs.50,00,000/-. Such information does not in any manner is sufficient to form the belief th…