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.

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1606/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…A witness is not entitled to a copy of his statement.” 6.11 Now we proceed to discuss case laws referred before us: 6.11.1 First case law which is relied here is the Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) held as under “The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued a notice for reassessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was the beneficiary of certain accommodation entries, which w…

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1605/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…A witness is not entitled to a copy of his statement.” 6.11 Now we proceed to discuss case laws referred before us: 6.11.1 First case law which is relied here is the Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) held as under “The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued a notice for reassessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was the beneficiary of certain accommodation entries, which w…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4861/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income-tax Officer, vs. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ward 13(12), New Delhi. E-292, IInd Floor, Old Double Storey Lane, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. PAN-AABCJ6528Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. D.C. Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 of…

Ambey Construction Company, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANFA7199K Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Revenue by : Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing :19.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2019 ORDER Per N. S. Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated…

M/S. Key Components (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. (ii) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., 387 ITR 147. (iii) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (iv) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sab Infrastructure Ltd., vs. ACIT 2017-(9)-TMI- 1589. 12 ITA.No.366/Del./2016 M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd., Delhi. (v) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383. (vi) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.…

Mohan Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153

…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 25 Income- tax Officer, even the assessment order has been passed within a very…

M/S Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ’B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 566 & 567/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08 cuke M/s Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd., The ITO, Vs. B-2, Jaipur Tower, Ward-4(3), MI Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACB 7551 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As M/S Metro Doors Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 2144/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle 3(2), (Formerly Known As M/S New Delhi. Metro Doors Pvt. Ltd.), Vs E-430, Greater Kailash-I, Delhi-110048 Appellant Respondent Department By: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 2144/Del/2015 Assessment year 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle 3(2), (Formerly known as M/s New Delhi. Metro Doors Pvt. Ltd.), Vs E-430, Greater Kailash-I, Delhi-110048 Appellant Respondent Department by: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA Date of hearing: 22.11.2018 Date of pronouncement: 28.01.2019 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Th…

Dilwara Leasing & Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee

ITA 3927/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…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 has been passed within a very s…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…essment order. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suren International (2013) 357 ITR 24 (Del.), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment or…

Prabhu Finsec Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 1221/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. K. N. Chary & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito Prabhu Finsec Pvt. Ltd.403, Vs W A R D - 2 0 ( 1 ) 405 M G House, Community Centre, W Azirpur Industrial New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110052 Pan Aaacp5228J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…In support, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judgments of Jurisdictional High Court. 1) Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas(P) Ltd 395 ITR 677 (Del) 2) Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd 384 ITR 147 (Del) 3) Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) (2017) Ltd 396 ITR 5 (Del) 6 Assessment Year: 2008-09 8. The Id. AR drew our attention towards reasons recorded and submitted that there is no nexus established or to substantiate the reasons recorded which shows a casual approach of the AO while recording the reasons. The Id. AR submitted that as per decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the cas…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…c Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment or…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…c Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment or…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…c Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment or…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…c Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment or…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…tions are not genuine. The ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon the following decisions: ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 9 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT (i) Pr.CIT Vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del). (ii) Pr.CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del) (iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) (iv) Rajiv Agarwal Vs ACIT 395 ITR 255. (v) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax. 7. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has submitted that the enquiry conducted by the DDIT(Inv), Faridabad reveals the fact that the alleged transaction of application money and tr…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…tions are not genuine. The ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon the following decisions: ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 9 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT (i) Pr.CIT Vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del). (ii) Pr.CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del) (iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) (iv) Rajiv Agarwal Vs ACIT 395 ITR 255. (v) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax. 7. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has submitted that the enquiry conducted by the DDIT(Inv), Faridabad reveals the fact that the alleged transaction of application money and tr…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…Engineering Ldyog(P)Ltd. v. DCIT 35. 386 ITR 545 (Del) Agya Ram v. CIT 36. ITA No. 108/2015 dated 19.11.2015 (Del) CIT v. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 37. 395 ITR 255 Rajiv Agarwal v. ACIT 38. 395 ITR 677 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO 39. 396 ITR 5 (Del) Pr. CIT v. RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. 40. 398 ITR 198 Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT 41. W.P. (C) 7601/2017 dated 29.8.2017 (Del) R.P. Foam Home (P) Ltd. v. ITO 42. CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in 237 Taxman 378 (MP) 43. CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). 44. Central India Electricity…

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

…sessment on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department and recording of reasons without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and without tangible material is invalid :- 6 PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5. (ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677. (iii) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 338 ITR 51. (iv) CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285. (v) India Terminal Connector Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT, 52 SOT 13. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in a mechanical manner has…

Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…sons recorded, the A.O. could not have formed the belief that income had escaped assessment, inasmuch as, such belief had been formed on a factually incorrect premise. 7.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) held as under : 12 ITA.No.2749/Del./2018 Shri Jagat Singh, Ghaziabad. “The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued a notice for reassessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was…