Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

324 ITR 154High Court2010#538 most cited

What is Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO authority for?

Reasons recorded under Section 148 for reopening an assessment are jurisdictional facts that form the sole basis for assuming power and cannot be changed, supplemented, or corrected later. Such reasons must be based on fresh tangible material indicating income escapement.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO · 324 ITR 154 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons recorded · reassessment validity · reasons cannot be supplemented · tangible material · jurisdictional facts · reopening of assessment · escapement of income

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 1190 CTR 166

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 151Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

books or books of accountsection 2(12a)section 2(40)section 148(2)going concerndumb documentsborrowed satisfactionescapement of incometangible materialkelvinatorreopening of assessmentreason to believe

Judgments citing Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…main section 147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154(Bom) = (2010-TIOL-146-HC-MUM- IT) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) = (2007-TIOL-95-SC-IT) has held that even when an intimation is issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to satisfy the test of existe…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…main section 147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154(Bom) = (2010-TIOL-146-HC-MUM- IT) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) = (2007-TIOL-95-SC-IT) has held that even when an intimation is issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to satisfy the test of existe…

Spr Infrastructure India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 638/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) ITA Nos.638 & 639/Hyd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. SPR Infrastructure India Vs. Dy. Private Limited, Commissioner of Surya Soudha, Plot No.185, Income Tax, Ayyappa Society, Khanamet Circle 3(2), Village, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN AACCD4913G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao. Respondent By : Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R) Date of Hearing : 24.02.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2021.…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3715, 3716 & 3717/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Financial Services Pvt. Room No.673A, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 113, 1st Floor, Maker M.K. Road, Chamber-V, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCM 2372F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Properties Pvt. Ltd., Room No.673A, 6th Floor, 113, 1st Floor,…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3715, 3716 & 3717/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Financial Services Pvt. Room No.673A, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 113, 1st Floor, Maker M.K. Road, Chamber-V, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCM 2372F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Properties Pvt. Ltd., Room No.673A, 6th Floor, 113, 1st Floor,…

Jaee Vishwas Joshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodjaee Vishwas Joshi Vs. Acit,Circle-21(1) 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan 1002, Om Co-Op.Housing Society Limited Bkc M.B.Raut Road Mumbai-400 051 Shivaji Park, Dadar Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aelpa7074L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 147Section 148

…relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ankitha Choksi vs ITO (2009) (411 ITR 207). The assessee has also relied upon the following judicial precedents:- i) Prashanth S.Joshi vs CIT (2010) (324 ITR 154) ii) Plus Paper Food Pack Ltd. Vs ITO (2015) (374 ITR 485) (Bom.) iii) ACIT vs Dhariya Construction Company (supreme Court) iv) CIT (Delhi) vs Kelvinator of India (SC) v) Akshar Builders vs ACIT,28(1), dated 17/01/2019 (Bom.) vi) Pr.CIT vs G &G Pharma Ltd., dated 08/10/2015 (Delhi High court) vii) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603…

Smt. Rupal Dhupelia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 675/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.674 & 675/Kol/2011 Assessment Year:2002-03 Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 4099 F] Dy. Commissioner of बनाम / Smt. Rupal Dhupelia Income Tax, Central V/s. C/o Manoj Dhupelia & Co. Circle-III, 18, Rabindra Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 Sarani, Poddar Court, 5th Floor, Kolkata-01 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 3509 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan. Ad…

Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 674/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.674 & 675/Kol/2011 Assessment Year:2002-03 Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 4099 F] Dy. Commissioner of बनाम / Smt. Rupal Dhupelia Income Tax, Central V/s. C/o Manoj Dhupelia & Co. Circle-III, 18, Rabindra Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 Sarani, Poddar Court, 5th Floor, Kolkata-01 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 3509 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan. Ad…

Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 40, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…partners. The coordinate bench chose to follow the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s A.N.Naik Associates (2004 265 ITR 346) and M/s Anik Industries Ltd. Assessment Years-2010-11 & 2012-13 distinguished the case law of Prashant B.Joshi V/s ITO (324 ITR 154). However, factual matrix is not the same here since the reconstitution deed do not envisages relinquishment of assessee’s right in the assets of the firm. Therefore, the said case law as well as the case law of CIT V/s A.N.Naik Associates (supra) is not applicable. 6.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High in Prashant B.Joshi V/s ITO (supra) observed as under…

M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…ndal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 87 (Del.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) affired by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) iiii) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO iv) CIT vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. , 323 ITR 490 (Del) vi) Ravinder Singh And Another vs. CIT, 253 ITR 353 (Del) v) Unitech Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in 290 CTR 201 (HC)” 16. Further, the decision of the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excel Industri…

M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…ndal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 87 (Del.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) affired by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) iiii) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO iv) CIT vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. , 323 ITR 490 (Del) vi) Ravinder Singh And Another vs. CIT, 253 ITR 353 (Del) v) Unitech Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in 290 CTR 201 (HC)” 16. Further, the decision of the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excel Industri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acorus Wireless Unitech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…ndal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 87 (Del.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) affired by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) iiii) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO iv) CIT vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. , 323 ITR 490 (Del) vi) Ravinder Singh And Another vs. CIT, 253 ITR 353 (Del) v) Unitech Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in 290 CTR 201 (HC)” 16. Further, the decision of the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excel Industri…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Katra vs. Sh. Chain Singh, Katra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 635/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Pal Meena (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Chain Singh Ward-2(5), Katra Ward No.3, Nangal Road Katra [PAN:AILPS 9489E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Amar Pal Meena (Ld. DR) Respondent by: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA) Date of hearing: 28.08.2019 Date of pronouncement: 09.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue Department against the order dated 28/06/2017 impugned herein passed by the Ld.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Abhay Sadashiv Gadgil, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/PUN/2017[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)

…hetty (supra). I hold the similar view as of the appellant that the said case was wrongly applied by the AO without proper appreciation of the facts in appellant’s case under consideration. I on the other hand, found that the case of Prashant S Joshi Vs. CIT, 324 ITR 154 (Bom) was squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. Therefore, the addition made of Rs.1,21,00,000/- on account of long term capital gains is hereby deleted. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the appellant are accordingly allowed.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, Ld. D.R. supported the o…

Aries Agro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…8 ITR 332 {Bom} Titanor Components vs. ACIT [2011]-60 DTR 273 {Bom} Sound Casting Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 250 CTR 119 {Bom} Sitara Diamond Pvt.Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 91 {Bom} Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 154 [Bom] Prashant Joshi vs. ITO-324 ITR 154 [Bom] Similarly, as regards deduction claimed u/s 35D, the assessee has filed written submission and argued that its claim of expenditure related to share issue expenses is in accordance with provision of section 35D and accordingly, the AO was erred in re-computing, such deduction by restricting 5% of ‘capital employed’, excluding long term bor…

Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 1780/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1780/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai V. Assistant Commissioner Of Patel,(Sheta), Income Tax, Central 10 Shantiniketan Row House, Circle-2, Surat Anand Mahal Road Adajan, Surat. [Pan: Abcpp 1275 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Sriniwas T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…orded. It is well-settled that reasons recorded cannot be supplemented with Mansukhbhai D Patel v. ACIT-2, Surat /I.T.A. No.1780/AHD/2016/A.Y.2011-12 Page 11 of 21 other material as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S Joshi v. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bombay) and Hindustan Lever Limited v. R V. Wadkar, ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bombay). In the reasons recorded, it is also been mentioned that the extra consideration of Rs.11,65,31,847/- was paid in cash over and above the consideration of Rs.4,52,60,000/-. However, the copy of seized page of Satakhat/ saudachittihi from locker and scanned at Page No.3…

Shri Ravindrasinh N.Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3344/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…issuance of notice, and in the absence of any reasons for reopening having been recorded prior to reopening of assessment, the reassessment proceedings fail for this short reason alone. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxmann 1 has observed: "The AO must have reasons to believe that such is the case (i.e. any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice under s. 147". In other words, when no reasons are recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice, the reassessment proceeding…

Shri Ravindrasinh N.Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3343/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…issuance of notice, and in the absence of any reasons for reopening having been recorded prior to reopening of assessment, the reassessment proceedings fail for this short reason alone. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxmann 1 has observed: "The AO must have reasons to believe that such is the case (i.e. any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice under s. 147". In other words, when no reasons are recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice, the reassessment proceeding…

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 172/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.172/RJT/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/s Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot. PAN: AAKFS6892E (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Vimal Desai, A.R : Revenue by Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…IT(A) is invalid. 14. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that sum received on retirement from partnership firm which is outstanding as capital balance to the credit of account of partners account is not taxable :- 1. Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bom) 2. Chalasani Venkatesara Rao Vs. ITO 349 ITR 423 (A. P.) 3. CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Kar) 4. CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393 (Guj) He also relied on various decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal on this proposition. 15. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that sum standing to the credit…