Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

362 ITR 460High Court2014#17828 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Also reported as

228 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68Section 132

Issues it is cited on

bogus share capitalmliborrowed satisfactionreasoned ordershare application moneytangible materialchief commissionerreopening of assessmentaccommodation entryescapement of incomereason to believesection 151

Judgments citing Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…t order, itself is held to be unsustainable, the assessment order would also be rendered unsustainable.” 30. Honourable Delhi High court Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2013] 40 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 32 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) has laid down the importance of filing objections and its treatment by ld AO as under :- “7. In order to protect the interest of the petitioner, as some apprehension has been expressed that the Assessing Officer may directly pass the re-assessment order, we are inclined to pass directions. It is directed that the petitioner will file obje…

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…t order, itself is held to be unsustainable, the assessment order would also be rendered unsustainable.” 30. Honourable Delhi High court Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2013] 40 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 32 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) has laid down the importance of filing objections and its treatment by ld AO as under :- “7. In order to protect the interest of the petitioner, as some apprehension has been expressed that the Assessing Officer may directly pass the re-assessment order, we are inclined to pass directions. It is directed that the petitioner will file obje…

SUNRISE PROPBUILD PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1258/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…able, the assessment order would also be rendered unsustainable.” Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 30. Honourable Delhi High court Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2013] 40 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 32 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) has laid down the importance of filing objections and its treatment by ld AO as under :- “7. In order to protect the interest of the petitioner, as some apprehension has been expressed that the Assessing Officer may directly pass the re-assessment order, we are inclined to pass directions. It is directed that the petitioner will file obje…

SUNRISE PORPBUILD PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1257/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…able, the assessment order would also be rendered unsustainable.” Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 30. Honourable Delhi High court Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2013] 40 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 32 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) has laid down the importance of filing objections and its treatment by ld AO as under :- “7. In order to protect the interest of the petitioner, as some apprehension has been expressed that the Assessing Officer may directly pass the re-assessment order, we are inclined to pass directions. It is directed that the petitioner will file obje…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAILASH MULCHAND KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2727/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…dicated separately, communicated to the assessee, and only thereafter may the reassessment proceedings continue. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Tupperware India (P) Ltd. [(284 CTR 68)] and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [(362 ITR 460)] has reiterated that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts renders the entire reassessment process invalid. 16 ITA No.2727/Mum/2025 and CO No.133/Mum/2025 Kailash Mulchand Kothari 12. Equally significant is the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [(2016) 66 tax…

Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (362 ITR 460) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax