How many judgments cite PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.?

104 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 143(1).

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.

391 ITR 11High Court2017#1043 most cited

What is PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd. authority for?

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd. · 391 ITR 11 · Section 151 approval · mechanical approval reassessment · non-application of mind sanction · reassessment beyond four years · Section 147 · Section 148 · suspicion vs evidence · Section 68 addition · bogus share capital

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 143(1)Section 153C Section 250

Issues it is cited on

principal chief commissioner of income-tax section 147(b)section 147(1)section 147(a)sanctioning authority bogus share capital approval under section 151 section 151(1)section 151(2)non application of mind material facts necessary for assessment beyond four years

Judgments citing PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi., Delhi vs. Sandeep Bajaj, Delhi

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

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…sh High Court in the case of CIT v. Goyanka Line & Chemical Ltd (2-15) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held that "Yes, I am Satisfied" cannot be held to be valid approval/sanction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017]391 ITR 11, while deciding an identical issue has held that section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice has to apply his mind and form an opinion. Mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the commissioner has to record elaborate reasons for agre…

Reliable Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 695/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Reliable Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant Kaveri House, 132/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcr7841N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A.R. & Shri Rajeev Kumar Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 12, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ion of law involved in the matter, warranting reconsideration. 7 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Reliable Vinimay Private Limited 11. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Vs.- N.C. Cables Ltd. Reported in (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.) in para 11 has held as under:- “Sec. 151 clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the CIT has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. A…

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

…been held to be valid some of which are listed below: - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt Paramjit Kaur [2009) 311 ITR 38 (Punjab & Haryana)]; Commissioner of Income-tax v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [(2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi)]; PCIT v. N C Cables Pvt Ltd [2017) 391 ITR 11 (Delhi)] Mrs. Sejal J. Panchal v. Income-tax Officer [2018] 90 taxmann.com 305(Ahmedabad - Trib.) In addition to above noted citations, the ld. counsel has also placed vehement reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi)] 5. Replying to the above, the l…

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Soumya Tradecom Pvt Ltd (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P)Ltd.), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1095/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-24(1), New Delhi M/S Soumya Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P) Ltd.,) Vs. Room No. 91, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, South Delhi, Delhi 110019 Pan Aalcs 1040 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, Ca Revenue For : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Dated 07.07.2020 For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 4,97,14,844/- Made On Account Of Share Application Mony & Share Capital." 2. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Take Notice Of The Reason Recorded Wherein The Then Ao Had Mentioned Amount Of Rs. 4,43,84,8441- & While Framing Of Reason, The Ao Had Mentioned Escapement Of Income At Least Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Which Has Broader Prospective. 3. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That "Approved" Connotes That Competent Authority Has Read & Understood Fully The Proposal Proposed By Ao & He Is Satisfied That The Case Is Fir For Reopening Us 148 Of The I.T. Act." 4. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Bogus Nature Of Transactions As The Assessee Company Did Not Provide Relevant Documents Before A To Establish The Genuineness Of The Transactions So Undertaken." 5. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That Onus Of Proving Transaction As Bogus Nature On Ao Comes Only After Discharge Of Onus By Assessee By Giving All Relevant Documents Which Assessee Failed To Discharge During Assessment Proceedings. Application Of Revenue Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 255 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, CA

Section 151

…late order submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has quashed initiation of reassessment proceedings and consequent reassessment order by rightly following the preposition of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. N C Cables Ltd. reported as 391 ITR 11 (Del.) for want of valid approval u/s. 151 of the Act as the approving authority while granting approval merely mentioned “approved” which shows that the ld. PCIT has not recorded proper satisfaction and gave approval without application of mind in a mechanical manner. Therefore appeal of revenue deserves to be dismissed only on this ground uphold…

M/S Blue City Township & Colonizers, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

…O 24 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO The relevant case law referred from the case law Index filed by Ld. AR is reproduced here under: (i) The Hon. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 391 ITR 11 (Delhi) Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share Application money) - assessment year 2001-02 - Where assessee had furnished large amount of materials in form of documents to evidence genuineness of identity and transactions as well as creditworthiness of share applicants and other creditors and Assessing Officer did not conduc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 144/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-II Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del). Also a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that now when the assessee had furnished documents to evidence genuineness of transaction and identity and creditworthiness of parties, then in case of failure by the AO to conduct adequate and proper 23 ACIT-1(1),Raipur Vs. M/s. R. R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. enquiry no addition…

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargagroha Fincap Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-51, Mahendru Enclave Gt Ward-1(4), Karnal Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca8075G

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

…tioned: "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act." From the above, it is clear that none of the supervisory authorities have applied their mind. I find, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs N.C Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11(Del), has observed as under- "Reassessment-Issuance of Notice-Sanction for issue of Notice-Assessee had in its return for AY 2001-02 claimed that sum of Rs. 1 Crore was received towards share application amounts and a further sum of Thirty Five Lakhs was credited to it as an advance towards loan-Original assessment was completed u/s 143(3)- Howeve…

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

…ngh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors[2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del).” ……………………………………………………………………………………

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…ingh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) 21 I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs…

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

ACIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi vs. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5821/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…ranted by approving authority by appending expression “Approved”. Further reliance is placed in the decision of RMP Holdings P Ltd ITA No.7243/Del/2019 dt: 31.07.2020, Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC) and Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del).” 6. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, from the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Omkam Developers Ltd. (supra), I observe that in the similar set of facts and circumstances, similar legal contention was placed before the ‘E’ Bench which was adjudicated as follows:- “10. We have heard rival submission o…

Nadeem Hasan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 445/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.445/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Nadeem Hasan Ito, 159, Meena Bazar, Vs. Ward 46(4) Jama Masjid, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Accph8788G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…accorded approval which is also undated without any application of mind. For the proposition that an approval granted without an application of mind is bad in law reliance is placed on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [391 ITR 11]. 7 I.T.A.No.445/Del/2020 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. The first contention of the assessee is that the assessment was reopened without application of mind and on wrong assumption of…

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8757/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.8757/DDN/2019 A.Y. 2011-2012 M/s. ANM Fincap (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Shop No.9, Plot Ward – 1 (1), No.51, Block-C, vs. Room No.380A, Mahendru Enclave, C.R. Building, Near Hans Cinema, Delhi – 110 033 New Delhi – 110 002. PAN AAACA9489Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CA For Revenue : Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M. This appeal filed…

ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane vs. Shri. Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7432/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…from genuine purchases. He further referred to ten judgments of various co-ordinate Benches on the similar issue. 018. On the issue of notice and satisfaction, he referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) as well as on approval u/s 151 of the Act on decision of Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in 231 Taxman 173. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kalpana Shantilal Haria Vs. ACIT dated 22.12.2017, wherein the approval granted without application of mind was held to be invalid. In view of t…

Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road vs. ITO Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 6605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 68

…d by the Addl. CIT showing the application of mind to the proposal of the Assessing Officer. He has in this respect also relied upon the following decisions: (i) Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021)435 ITR 642 [Del-HC] (ii) PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11 (Del-HC) (iii) CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 [SC] (iv) CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 [MP-HC] (v) United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del-HC) (vi) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha &Ors. 79 ITR 603 (SC) 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, had submitted t…

Intime Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6357/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…ecision of this Tribunal in the case of Avani Premises Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO in ITA No.1664/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 09/01/2020. 6 M/s. Intime Realty P. Ltd., (b) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Limited reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) (c) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chaliha & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) (d) Decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. reported in 231 Taxman 73. SLP of revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed in 237 Taxman 37…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…s Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); iii. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). iv. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) v. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); vi. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); vii. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del)"; viii. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); 26. He further submitt…