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.

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 147

…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 absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of ass…

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…scaped assessment and consequently the reassessment made u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contentions: - • PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Del)]; • CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [357 ITR 330 (Del)]; • Signature Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)]; • Pr. CIT Vs. G.G. Pharma (India) Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Del)]; • DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing (P) Ltd. ITA No.660/Kol/2011. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the approval accorded by the Ld. Pr. CIT is with…

Decent Industries P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…ore us during hearing. The thrust of Ld. AR is such that the AO has merely adopted the report shared by Investigation Wing and initiated re-assessment proceeding against assessee without application of his own mind. Relying upon Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd. 422 ITR 337 Page 4 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 (Bombay), NuPower Renewables (P) Ltd. 104 taxmann.com 307 (Bombay), Singnature Hotels (P) Ltd. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) and Fair Investment Ltd. 357 ITR 146 (Delhi), Ld. AR prayed that the re-opening in such a manner is…

Krishna Murthy Ella, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

…essing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Page 15 of 18 ITA No 585 of 2023 and SA No 10 of 2024 Krishna Murthy Ella the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd reported in (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) held that where re- assessment was resorted to on the basis of information from DDIT (Inv.) that the assessee had received accommodation entry and there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer to tangible material and formation of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, the re-assessment was n…

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ITA No.665/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Shri Rang Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Shyamvan, Gandhinagar Circle, B/h. Vrundavan Hotel, Gandhinagar. Koba Circle, Vs. Post: Koba Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 007 Gujarat. [PAN – AAICS 9126 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2024 Date of Pr…

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…f 2022 dated 25.08.2023 (Bom), iv) ITO Vs. Vinay Kumar Singh & Ors. in GA No. 1 of 2023 dated 19.02.2024 (Cal HC), Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, AY : 2015-16 v) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl in 396 ITR 5, vi) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas in 395 ITR 677, vii) Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No. 1270/Kol/2013 dated 01.05.2023 and viii) Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 205/Kol/2021 dated 18.04.2022. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there were Covid restrictions at that point of time when approval was taken and even on account of Covid the reopening was carried out at a later…

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rewin Ceramic Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-21(3) A-410, Ansal Chamber-I Vs. New Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi PAN:AADCK5934F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. , Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA & Sh. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/07/2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of L…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1172/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That…

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1170/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’ reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.’ reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of ‘CIT vs. Atul Jain’ reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur’ reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). 7.1. Even on merits, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing. That…

Bhootnath Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 234Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 189/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bhootnath Vintrade Private Limited vs ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata PAN: AADCB 5629 G Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 17.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.06.2024 For the Assessee Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Revenue Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter the “…

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2767/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

…f the policy, for assignment of the policy in her favour. This too was completely ignored by the Assessing Officer.” 13. Following the said decision and also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677) the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of RN Khemka Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No.7244/Del/2019) dated 12.08.2021 held that if there is non- application of mind in recording reasons, the AO could not be said to have reason to believe to justify reopening of assessment. While holding so the Tribunal observed as under: - ITAA…

Rajesh Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT CC-14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and as a consequential effect, impugned assessment is quashed

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. Dcit Ff, Plot No.32, Road No.43, Cc-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aalpg2490F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. DCIT FF, Plot No.32, Road No.43, CC-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AALPG2490F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR Date of hearing: 26/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.11.20…

ITO, Ward-52(2), New Delhi vs. Gaurav Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7752/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2010-11 Ito Ward-52(2) Vs. Gaurav Khullar New Delhi. A-301/6. Dr. A.P.J Kalam Marg, New Delhi – 110 011 Pan Aaypk9694G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITO Ward-52(2) Vs. Gaurav Khullar New Delhi. A-301/6. Dr. A.P.J Kalam Marg, New Delhi – 110 011 PAN AAYPK9694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Department by: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing: 13.05.2024 Date of 28.05.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM The appeal is against order dated 28.09.2018 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned “CIT(A)”] through which assess…

Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

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

ITA 455/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…147 of the Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with: i) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) iii) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 iv) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 10. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reasons recorded do not seem to indicate reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment: i) Ingram Micro (India) Exports PTE…

Prashant Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Pune

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

ITA 323/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…147 of the Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with: i) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) iii) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 iv) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 10. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reasons recorded do not seem to indicate reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment: i) Ingram Micro (India) Exports PTE…

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…thus. the notice issued under s. 148 and consequent assessment proceedings are set aside.- Principal CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd. (2017) 156 DTR (Del) 79; (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del), Principal CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) 1254 DTR (Del) 100 : (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del.) CI vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd (2010) 233 CTT (Del)69; (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 98: (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), SABH Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198(Del), Future Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 89 ITR (Trib) 676 and Century Fiscal Services Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 210 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 26 followed”. 10. In…

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Act. We find that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer are at best the reproduction of the conclusions in the investigations report and indeed it is a “borrowed satisfaction”. 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd., [395 ITR 677] 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 assessment. The Page No. 7 Manish…

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…the examination of the income tax return filed by the assessee. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Shri Atul Jain [299 ITR 383 (Delhi)] ii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285 (Delhi)] iii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Delhi)] iv) PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] v) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [396 ITR 5 (Del)] vi) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)] 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.1. to 6.4. of the impugned order stating that reopenin…