Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv)

332 ITR 115High Court2011#12641 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv)

Bhupendra Surani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2004/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2004/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2010-11) Shri Bhupendra Surani B-2005, Chandanbala Chs R.R. Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai 400006 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bjaps5716D बनाम Vs. Addl. Cit, Central Circle 15 & 16 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 2(24)(iv)Section 250

…n the following decisions: - 1. Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT, 300 ITR 403 (SC) 2. West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. JCIT, 267 ITR 345 (Cal) 3. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 171 ITR 634 (All) 4. Alidhara Texpro Engineering P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 332 ITR 115 (Guj) 6. The learned AR submits that no attempt was made by the Assessing Officer to understand the accounts of the assessee. The books of the assessee are not complex at all. The Assessing Officer merely on surmises and 5 conjectures invoked the provisions of Section 143(2A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was probably carried away by the fac…

Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 46, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 8(3)), Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4984/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, Income Tax, Opera House Central Circle-46, Mumbai फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Circle 8(3), Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामीरेखासिं./Pan No. Aaccr 2413 B आमकयअऩीरसिं./ Ita No. 5829/Mum/2016 (ननधाायणवषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-46, Mumbai 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Opera House Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Vs. Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Shri Sushil Kumar
Section 142Section 143(3)

…. Because of this failure he has presumed the accounts of the assessee (petitioner) are very complex and the desired information cannot be collected easily." (emphasis in bold supplied). This view is also taken in Alidhara Texpro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 332 ITR 115 (Guj). In the present case, the Assessee submits that the AO never called for and, hence, it has not produced before him its books of account. Consequently, without examining the same he could never have formed his opinion about the nature and complexity thereof. In this regard, the Assessee also relies upon the affidavit dated 14.09.2019 sworn b…

Jivraj P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4541/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4543/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4541/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Jivraj P. Surani ACIT-CC 15 & 16 बनाम/ B-2005, Chandanbala CHS Mumbai RR Thakkar Marg Vs. Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGUPS-7685-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3.C.O. No.6…

Suresh V. Kukadiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4543/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4541/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Jivraj P. Surani ACIT-CC 15 & 16 बनाम/ B-2005, Chandanbala CHS Mumbai RR Thakkar Marg Vs. Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGUPS-7685-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3.C.O. No.6…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1734/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] Consulting Engineering Services Vs. The A.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor Circle - 3(1) Platinum Tower, 184, New Delhi Udyog Vihar, Phase I Gurgaon [Haryana] Pan: Aaacc 5110 G [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor Circle - 3(1) New Delhi Platinum Tower, 184, Udyog Vihar, Phase I Gurgaon [Haryana] Pan: Aaacc 5110 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Shri Ananya Kapoor, Adv Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

…inst the order of the CIT(A) challenging the order of the AO, holding that the order of assessment is barred by time.” 11. Our attention was further drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Alidhara Texpro Engineering [P] Ltd 332 ITR 115 where a similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and the relevant findings read as under: “7. Thus, it becomes apparent that insofar as FFPL and GTPL are concerned, the Assessing Officer has not been able to even prima facie form an opinion that having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the inte…

M/S. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1443/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] Consulting Engineering Services Vs. The A.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor Circle - 3(1) Platinum Tower, 184, New Delhi Udyog Vihar, Phase I Gurgaon [Haryana] Pan: Aaacc 5110 G [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor Circle - 3(1) New Delhi Platinum Tower, 184, Udyog Vihar, Phase I Gurgaon [Haryana] Pan: Aaacc 5110 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Shri Ananya Kapoor, Adv Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

…inst the order of the CIT(A) challenging the order of the AO, holding that the order of assessment is barred by time.” 11. Our attention was further drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Alidhara Texpro Engineering [P] Ltd 332 ITR 115 where a similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and the relevant findings read as under: “7. Thus, it becomes apparent that insofar as FFPL and GTPL are concerned, the Assessing Officer has not been able to even prima facie form an opinion that having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the inte…

Kalavati Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4530/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Kalavati Surani Acit-Cc 15 & 16, B-2005, Chandanbala Chs Mumbai. Vs. Rr Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400006 Pan No. Aznps1185J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…In support of his contentions regarding validity of special audit, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv) (2015) 280 CTR (All) 582, Alidhara Texpro Engg. P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2011) 332 ITR 115 (Guj), West Bengal State Coop Bank Ltd. v. JCIT (2004) 267 ITR 345 (Cal), order of the Tribunal in ITO v. Vilsons Particle Board Industries Ltd. (2017) 184 TTJ (Pune) 84 and M/s Jyoti Traders v. DCIT in IT(SS) 62/Mum/2008 and 111/Mum/2008 & others dated 20.05.201 (ITAT-Mumbai). 6. The Ld. DR, however, filed an application dated 19.07.2018 stating…

M/S Bronze Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 611/CHANDI/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 250(6)

…infact for justification of the order, there is also in fact no reason given by the AO. Inviting attention to the decision mentioned at Sr.No. 2 which is a 6.9 decision of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Alidhara Textool Engineering P.Ltd. & ors V DCIT 332 ITR 115 (Guj) it was submitted that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to note that for justifying special audit, the AO must demonstrate that accounts were complex. The Court found that where no evidence had been placed by the AO demonstrating that the accounts were complex, the consequent assessment was held to be not valid. The said decision, it was submit…