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 366,314 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.

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…ITR 265 (Del);  Pr CIT vs M/S SNG Developers Ltd404 ITR 312 (Del) approved by Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue in SLP 42379/2017 Dt: 09.02.2018;  CIT vs Suren International Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 24 (Del);  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del);  CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H);  Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548 (Bom.);  Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer 411 ITR 207 (Bom);  DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and others ITA No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019, M/s Superior Technologies P Ltd ITA No.2269/Del/2017. M/s Shiv Sai Infras…

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…peal allowed. • Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). • Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). • PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 1.20 Therefore, within the purview of the undisputed facts discussed above and the settled law of the land, it has been proven beyond in law being against the principle of natural justice, time-barred, without jurisdiction, application of mind, based upon the wrong assu…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

…ot contain the findings by conclusions of AO one after the other which were at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report and indeed a I borrowed satisfaction". Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT -VS- RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) in which it was held as under: "Where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said iriformation could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified." The informati…

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…ped 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 22 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the…

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 620/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Mukesh Jain HUF 1-12A, 1st Avenue, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle-06, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADHM6397P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

…ed 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio an…

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…ped 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio and…

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…ped 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio and…

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…ped 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio and…

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…ped 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio and…

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…ped 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 assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio and…

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 18/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Jaiprakash Yadav ITO, Vs. NH 8 Near Maharaja Hotel Ward, Behror Dughera, Dooghera, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANQPY8792C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :…

Avi Aggarwal, H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi, Jao ITO Ward6(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ible material and formation of reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and reference was made in the 7 following judgements: i). Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs ITO [2011] 338 ITR 151 (Delhi High Court) ii). Pr.CIT Vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi High Court) iii). CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd., 38 taxmann.com 403 (Del). iv). Well Trans Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in W.P. © 13273/2018, judgment, dated 02.09.2024. 11. It was further argued that there was no incriminating material, except the statement recorded at the back of assessee of Sh. Anil Kumar Khemka and on that also,…

Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi)/[2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi)[26-05-2017] iii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)/[2017] 249 Taxman 610 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi)[07-07-2017] iv) Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad vs. Anupam Kapoor [2008] 166 Taxman 178 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2008] 299 ITR 179 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2007] 212 CTR 491 (Punjab & Haryana)[01-02-2007] v) Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2008] 168 Taxman 39 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2009] 311 ITR 38 (Punjab & Haryana)[…

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…held by various courts that mere receipt of letter/ information from another officer/ investigation wing does not constitute to be a tangible material and reopening on the basis of the same is not justified; • PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. reported in 2017] 396 ITR 5 • CIT Vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. in ITA No.356/2013 dated 22.09.2015 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court); • Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [2011] 338 ITR 51, • Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, reported in 329 ITR 110 (Delhi), • CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (D…

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…o be quashed. Similar view has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajhans Processors vs. UOI reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 29 and by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., reported in [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). 6.3 Further, since information and documents were duly furnished at the time of original assessment, the allegation of the AO in issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act stating that balance software license fee amounting to Rs.5,79,19,094/- should be considered as capital expenditure, can be stated to be only change of opinion. Therefore, t…

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

ITA/25/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2025

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

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

…ITA 25/2022 Page 1 of 16 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 25/2022 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-04 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs. versus M/S GANESH GANGA INSVESTMENTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 28.02.2025 1. The Principal C…

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

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

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

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal ITO, Ward-1, Jalna 29, New Mondha, Bus Stand, Jalna HO, Vs. Jalna – 431203 PAN: AAQPJ5374E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 06-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-02-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.08.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assess…

Ravi Mehra, 1121, Sector 10, Panchkula 134109, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी बी” , च"डीगढ़ बी बी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, , उपा"य" एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, , लेखा सद"य , , , , BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 189/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Mehra, The ITO बनाम 1121, Sector 10, Panchkula, War-3, Panchkula Haryana-134109 Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPM9709L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by :…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

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

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

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

…uction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC)  Pr. CIT. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del)  Well Trans Logistics India (P.) Lad. vs. ACTT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 72 (Def)  CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del))  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated…