How many judgments cite Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO?

396 judgments on BharatTax cite Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (203 ITR 456), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 68.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

203 ITR 456Supreme Court of India1993#186 most cited

What is Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal · Section 147 reassessment · Section 148 notice · reason to believe income escaped · full and true disclosure failure · definite and reliable information · reopening after 143(3) assessment · validity of reassessment proceedings · income escaping assessment reason to believe · SC judgment reopening assessment

Also reported as

69 Taxmann 6274 SCC 7769 Taxmann.com 627

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 68 Section 139 Section 133(6)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosure full and true disclosure beyond four years live link material facts necessary for assessment kelvinator borrowed satisfaction mere change of opinion income escaping assessment reason to believe escapement of income

Judgments citing Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

Shri Mahavir Prasad, Haryana vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 924/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 54B

…decision can not, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before Their Lordships. As for her reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456], that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO “rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material fa…

Shri Vibhor Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2045/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Vibhor Singhal Vs. Ito C/O. Dinesh Mohan, Ward-2(4) Advocate, 2- Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No. 1, Circular Road Muzaffarnagar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2008-09 Vibhor Singhal Vs. ITO C/o. Dinesh Mohan, Ward-2(4) Advocate, 2- Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No. 1, Circular Road Muzaffarnagar PAN-AVPPS5240L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2008-09 Vaibhav Singhal Vs. ITO C/o. Dinesh Mohan, Ward-2(4) Advocate, 2- Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No. 1, Circular Road Muzaffarnagar PAN-FOCPS8903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03/1…

Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Anil Singhal C/O. Dinesh Vs. Ito, Mohan, Advocate, 2- Anand Ward-1(1) Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Muzaffarnagar Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan-Bksps7631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2017 Order Per B.P. Jain, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eleven Grounds Of Appeal & First Four Grounds Being Legal Which Have Been Pressed By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- That The Notice Issued U/S 148 & Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 1) 144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances, No Satisfaction Is Recorded By 2) The Assessing Officer As Required U/S 147/148 Of The Act Prior Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. That, No Satisfaction Has Been Recorded By The Assessing Officer After 3) 2

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2008-09 Anil Singhal C/o. Dinesh Vs. ITO, Mohan, Advocate, 2- Anand Ward-1(1) Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Muzaffarnagar Road, Muzaffarnagar PAN-BKSPS7631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2017 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, A.M. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, vide assessment order dated 24.0…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ts by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this rega…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 3859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamimyahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIMYAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos. 3859/M/2017 &3858/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Sejal Export (India) Vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2) DC-7221, Bharat Diamond R. No. 906, 9th Floor, Old Bourse, G Block BKC Bandra CGO Bldg Annexe M.K. RD. Mumbai. Pin: 400051 Mumbai. Pin: 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS7201B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing: 07.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ts by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 3.11. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid Shri Kantilal C. Jain because there was no true disclosure of the materia…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…hat transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts and the ITO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a case as held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). In a recent decision the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Guj) has held that: “Where after scrutiny assessment Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two well known entry operators of country provided beneficiary, Assessing Officer was justifi…

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…ich had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 4.11. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this rega…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…C) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC); Birla VXL Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1996) 130 CTR (Guj) 281 : (1996) 217 ITR 1 (Guj); Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. (1989) 176 ITR 352 (Pat); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. ITO & Anr. (1993) 113 CTR (SC) 436 : (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); Anant Kumar Saharia vs. CIT & Ors. (1999) 151 CTR (Gau) 556 : (1998) 232 ITR 533 (Gau); Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO (1999) 153 CTR (MP) 350 : (1999) 237 ITR 614 (MP); H.A. Nanji & Co. vs. ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal); N.D. Bhatt, IAC & Anr. vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1993) 115 CTR (Bom) 103 : (1995) 216 ITR 811 (Bom); Hindustan…

M/S. Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2092/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri S. D. Kapila, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr. D. R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…arlier as reason Nos. 1 and 2 are based on the verification of tax audit report and reason No. 3 is based upon the verification of profit and loss account. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Phoolchand Banjaranglal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. A. R. Enterprises (2002) 255 ITR 121 (Raj.); (iii) Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 168 ITR 296 (P & H); (iv) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); (v) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 175 (Del.); (vi) 175 Taxman 262 (Del.); (vii) Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 270 ITR 290…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…whney, in similar circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed and the matter was remanded to the ITAT for examination of the case on merits. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer (1993) 203 ITR 456 SC. The main thrust of the submission of Mr. Sawhney is that, as was in the case of India Terminal Connector System (supra), in the present case as well, there was specific information regarding the name of the entry provider, the date on which the entry was taken, the cheque details as well as the amount credited to the account of the Assessee.…

Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vice-Assessment Year : 2003-04 Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward 5(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan : Aaack1244M

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel &For Respondent: Ms Bedobani, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…3/Del/2013 11 so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction.’ 9. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phoolchand Bajrang Lal and Anr vs. ITO and Anr (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), in which AO’s jurisdiction to initiate reassessment was challenged. Repelling the assessee’s arguments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an ITO acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under s. 147(a) r/w s. 148 only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 3441/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinsdia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 147oSection 263Section 43Section 43BSection 44A

…of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the reopening by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 is invalid:- Page 5 of 14 i. Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT W.P. (C) 7660/2012 dated 28.1.2014. ii. Phool Chand BajrangLal and Anr. V. Income Tax Officer and An., (1993) 203 ITR 456 (Supreme Court) iii. ITO, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 (103) ITR 437 (Supreme Court) iv. Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Etc. v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 534 v. CIT vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 2CC 723 /320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court) vi. CIT vs. Orient Craft, (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) The final conclusion of the Learned CI…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGPJ0184N Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.08…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

…which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 18 Disha N. Lalwani 2.15. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Divyesh Shah & Amit ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…sed return under normal provisions as well as u/s.115 JB, that the AO had dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee about reopening. He referred to the cases of Praful Chunilal Patel (236 ITR 832) Raymond Woollen Mills (236 ITR 34) and Phool Chand (203 ITR 456) and upheld the reopening. About the audit objection, he observed that, in the regions recorded by the AO there is no mention of any such objection, that the disputed amount was covered by clause (c) of explanation to section 115 JB of the Act, that it was not a case of change of opinion, that sufficiency of reasons for reopening did not fall for…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing and Celling Vs DCIT, System Pvt. Ltd., C/o Bhati Central Circle-II, Wadhwa & Co., CAs, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near MCF Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7152F Assessee by : Sh. K. C. Singhal, AR Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.01.2016 of ld. CI…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ents by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…