PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5High Court2017#293 most cited

What is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. · reassessment · section 148 · investigation wing · accommodation entries · tangible material · assessing officer · application of mind · live link · section 147

Also reported as

83 Taxmann.com 348249 Taxmann 610

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 151Section 1961Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

sanction under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentlive linksection 151(1)borrowed satisfactionsanctioning authorityfirst proviso to section 147non application of mindsection 151(2)tangible materialshare capital and share premiumnon-application of mind

Judgments citing PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi vs. Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6017/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ngly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and also following judgments:- 1. Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.). 2. Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) 3. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 dated 19.1l.2015 4. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO - [201 1] 338 ITR0051 5. CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR330 (Delhi) 6. Pr CIT vs SNG Developers Ltd (supra) (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) 7. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 584/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ngly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and also following judgments:- 1. Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.). 2. Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) 3. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 dated 19.1l.2015 4. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO - [201 1] 338 ITR0051 5. CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR330 (Delhi) 6. Pr CIT vs SNG Developers Ltd (supra) (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) 7. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3299/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ngly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and also following judgments:- 1. Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.). 2. Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) 3. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 dated 19.1l.2015 4. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO - [201 1] 338 ITR0051 5. CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR330 (Delhi) 6. Pr CIT vs SNG Developers Ltd (supra) (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) 7. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 1029/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ngly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and also following judgments:- 1. Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.). 2. Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) 3. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 dated 19.1l.2015 4. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO - [201 1] 338 ITR0051 5. CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR330 (Delhi) 6. Pr CIT vs SNG Developers Ltd (supra) (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) 7. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 585/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ngly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and also following judgments:- 1. Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.). 2. Pr.CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) 3. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 dated 19.1l.2015 4. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO - [201 1] 338 ITR0051 5. CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR330 (Delhi) 6. Pr CIT vs SNG Developers Ltd (supra) (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) 7. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported…

Sanjay Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153A

…ntry of Rs.15 lacs whereas at the time of framing of assessment, the assessee was assessed the share application money to the tune of Rs.2.15 crores. We find reason in the submission of learned AR that in view of the decision in PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.386 ITR 5 (Bom), such an error indicates non application of mind by the learned AO." ii) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in some of the cases as soon as the objections were rejected by the concerned Income- tax Officer, even the assessment order 33 has been passed within a very…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(3)

…e learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326(Guj.) and judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cae of PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl India Limited (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del.). It was submitted on merits that cross examination of the said parties were not done and their statement was recorded at the back of the assessee which cannot be accepted without cross examination. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashish International in ITA no. 4299…

Naozer Bejon Baldawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

…strial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (194 ITR 548)  Order of Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (88 taxrnann.com 439)  Judgment of tha Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5)  Order of Agra Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. and Ann v. ITO fcv'A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2009-10 in ITA No. 41 and 40/Agra/2017 and Anr. dated 01.06.2018 M/s. Neozer Bejon Baldawala Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) passed well reasoned order while…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…so in the case before us. There is a clear link between the information analysed by the AO and the relevant transactions. For the same reasons, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348/249 Taxman 610/396 ITR 5 (Delhi) does not carry the petitioner's case further. 38. In Chhugumal Rajput v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Supreme Court allowed the assessee's appeal on the finding that the ITO had not set out any reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material on the basis of which the pr…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…with each objection and give proper reasons for the conclusion. No attempt should be made to add to the reasons for reopening of the assessment beyond what has already been disclosed.” 5.4 That in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi) , it has been held as under: “12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No. 692/2016 Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not und…

Ratan Pal Kain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1273/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 148

…ssments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law. 38. The question framed is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but with no orders as to costs. iii) 396 ITR 5 (Del) Pro CIT v. RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. 11. There can be no manner of doubt that in the instant there was a failure of application of mind by the AO to the facts. In fact he proceeded on two wrong premises - one regarding alleged non- filing of the return and the other regarding the extent of the so- called accommodation entries. 12. Recently, in…

Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aligarh

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…caped assessment, the basic requirement of section 147 of the Act that the AO should apply independent mind in order to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, is not fulfilled. 17 In the case of “PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.”, (Supra) 396 ITR 5, it 13. was held that where information was received from investigation wing and the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was under taken by AO, said information could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that the impu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Jaico Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, Of Income Tax, 37Th B Cross, Vs. 28Th Main, 9Th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan: Aabcj8421G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 68

…., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom) 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 348 (Delhi), wherein it is held that, the information received from Investigation Wing could not be said to be tangible material per se without a further enquiry being undertaken by the Assessing Officer to establish link between "tangible material" and formation of reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for th…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 ITA No. 1602/Kol/2016 & CO No. 55 of 2016 Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1602/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACD9470A) Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 55/Kol/2016 In I.T.A. No. 1602/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commi…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…384 ITR 147 (Del.) and 6 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. PCIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs., RMG Poly vinyl 396 ITR 5 (Del.). He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and no particulars of credit have been mentioned in the reasons. The reasons also did not say if assessment have already been framed under section 143(3). Even the nature of the credit is not mentioned in the reasons. No particulars of accommodation entries have been mentioned. He has rel…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…384 ITR 147 (Del.) and 6 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. PCIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs., RMG Poly vinyl 396 ITR 5 (Del.). He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and no particulars of credit have been mentioned in the reasons. The reasons also did not say if assessment have already been framed under section 143(3). Even the nature of the credit is not mentioned in the reasons. No particulars of accommodation entries have been mentioned. He has rel…

Senior Infrabuild P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5977/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. C.L. SHARMA, ADVFor Respondent: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ame afresh, under the law, after considering the various judgments i.e. pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi); Rajiv Agarwal & Vijay Laxmi Agarwal vs. ACIT (2017) 395 ITR 225 (Delhi); Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi); Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur ITA No. 82 of 2012 and others in the case of CIT, Jabalpur vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical and Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NC Cables Ltd.; ITAT ‘E’ Bench Decision decided in ITA 3342/Del/2015 AY 2010-11; ITAT ‘D’ Bench decision in ITA No. 2430/Del/2015 i…

Sbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7791/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel and Shri Rajesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Additional CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…- (i) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that it is a case where the original return was accepted under Section 143(1) and there was no regular assessment under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer had received the specific information from DIT(Investigation) that on…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Randeep Investment (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4365/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…reasons recorded’ at the outset, cannot clothe the AO with the jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s 147. In support of his various contentions, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of i) CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5; and ii) Principal CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312. 14. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has raised fresh share capital of Rs. 3,67,03,000/-, out of which AO has made addition of share capital of Rs. 1,53,50,000/- from 9 share subscribers. All the share subscription money were received through account payee cheques, and al…

M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…reasons recorded’ at the outset, cannot clothe the AO with the jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s 147. In support of his various contentions, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of i) CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5; and ii) Principal CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312. 14. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has raised fresh share capital of Rs. 3,67,03,000/-, out of which AO has made addition of share capital of Rs. 1,53,50,000/- from 9 share subscribers. All the share subscription money were received through account payee cheques, and al…