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.

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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…

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” 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. 943/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Raghav Commodities ITO Vs. H-8, Chitranjan Marg, C- Ward 6(2), Jaipur Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARFR 1409 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind K…

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1067/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal cuke The DCIT 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I.Road Vs. Circle-1 Jaipur 302 0001 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABSPA 1121H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Ms.…

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…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 and…

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 410/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Gemco International cuke The ITO Vs. 3950, Lal Haweli, MSB Ka Rasta Ward 2(1) Johari Bazar, Jaipur 302 003 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 9238 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR…

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

…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. 681/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Circle-07 Vs. A 135 Parfume Factory, Jaipur Heerawala RIICO, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCP 4088 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA 286/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 286/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal The ITO Vs. 201, Sumangal Apartment, Ward 4(5) Near Kavantia Hospital, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGXPA 1347 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT…

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

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

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…has escaped assessment, form a belief that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. There is non-application of mind by the AO could not be said to have reason to believe as to justify reopening of assessment.” 14. In the case of PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvenyl (396 ITR 5) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court observed as under: - “12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No.692/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Sectio…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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

…d 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 a…

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

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

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

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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…s escaped assessment, form a belief that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. There is non-application of mind by the AO could not be said to have reason to believe as to justify reopening of assessment.” 20. In the case of PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvenyl (396 ITR 5) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court the information received from investigation wing cannot be said to be tangible material per se I.T.A.Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 without a further enquiry undertaken by AO. The High Court observed as under: - “12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No.692/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Inco…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…al Services Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT in WP No. 4888 of 2022 dated 25.08.2023 (Bom), iv) ITO Vs. Vinay Kumar Singh & Ors. in GA No. 1 of 2023 dated 19.02.2024 (Cal HC), Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, AY : 2015-16 v) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl in 396 ITR 5, vi) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas in 395 ITR 677, vii) Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No. 1270/Kol/2013 dated 01.05.2023 and viii) Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 205/Kol/2021 dated 18.04.2022. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there were Covid restrictions at that point of time when approval was taken and even on account of C…

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

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

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

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

Section 144Section 147Section 151

…of Lakhmichand Tejumal Vs. ACIT in ITA No.8094/Del/2019 dated 06.08.2021. Ld. Counsel submits that the coordinate bench considered various decisions including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Polyvenyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5) and Synfonia Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. in WP(c) 12544/2018. 4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the reopening of assessment is also bad in law for the reason that reopening is based on incorrect facts. Ld. Counsel submits that it is settled law that if wrong facts and wrong reasons are recorded for reopening of assessment such reopening is bad in…

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

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

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

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prashant Vithoba Navale DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Vs. Dist – Solapur – 413307 PAN : AJUPN2009F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Vs. Dist – Solapur – 413307 PAN : AQUPN3361R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 02…

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

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

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

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prashant Vithoba Navale DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Vs. Dist – Solapur – 413307 PAN : AJUPN2009F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Vs. Dist – Solapur – 413307 PAN : AQUPN3361R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 02…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…the AO does not have the legal basis to acquire jurisdiction for reassessment under s. 147 and thus. the notice issued under s. 148 and consequent assessment proceedings are set aside.- Principal CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd. (2017) 156 DTR (Del) 79; (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del), Principal CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) 1254 DTR (Del) 100 : (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del.) CI vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd (2010) 233 CTT (Del)69; (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 98: (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), SABH Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198(Del), Future Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 89 ITR (Trib) 676 and…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…impugned order in concluding that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.” 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in another case of PCIT v. RMG [396 ITR 5] dealt with identical issue and held as under: - "As in the above case, even in the present case, the Court is unable to discern the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the present case too, the information received from the Investigation Wing cannot be said to be ta…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…vs. Shri Atul Jain [299 ITR 383 (Delhi)] ii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285 (Delhi)] iii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Delhi)] iv) PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] v) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [396 ITR 5 (Del)] vi) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)] 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.1. to 6.4. of the impugned order stating that reopening is valid and there was a specific information that assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Mirabelle Trad…

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…issuing notice for reopening if it was found that he had tangible material to form a belief that income chargeable tax have escaped assessment. However, in the recent cases, Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has extended their opinion by holding that the reasons recorded by AO have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading of the reasons. It is also opined by the Court that the reasons to be believed must demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the be…

G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1171/Chandi/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana C/O G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana[Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1171/CHANDI/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम ACIT, Central Circle-II, Ludhiana C/o G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACG6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Da…