Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Other

326 ITR 34Supreme Court of India#24494 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 145escapement of incomereason to believeaccommodation entrysection 133section 133(6)notice under section 148assistant commissionersection 132section 15section 13

Judgments citing Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Other

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. PAN No. AAEFP 8206 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by : Ms. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by…

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…ich a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials could conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at the stage. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caes of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. V. ITO & Other reported in 326 ITR 34 (SC) held that sufficiency or correctness of material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of recording reasons. In the case, information of providing accommodation entry was available with the Assessing Officer and he formed requisite belief on the basis of the said information. There was no requirement in the law for the Assessing Office…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…ich a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials could conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at the stage. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caes of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. V. ITO & Other reported in 326 ITR 34 (SC) held that sufficiency or correctness of material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of recording reasons. In the case, information of providing accommodation entry was available with the Assessing Officer and he formed requisite belief on the basis of the said information. There was no requirement in the law for the Assessing Office…

Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Other (326 ITR 34) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax