Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110High Court2010#413 most cited

What is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

217

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment · borrowed satisfaction · non-application of mind · reason to believe · escapement of income · material facts · investigation report

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 151Section 133(6)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

live linkborrowed satisfactionsection 148(2)non application of mindmaterial facts necessary for assessmentbeyond four yearstangible materialsection 151(1)bogus ltcgkelvinatorreason to believeescapement of income

Judgments citing Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Svp Builders (India)Ltd

ITA/883/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…299 ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CI V. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders arid Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. ITA N0S.S7I, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 c& 966 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 i ' I I ' z-S Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB). 30..In sum, it was explained by this Court in CIT v. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. {supra) that: "under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquior India Ltd

ITA/875/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…299 ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CI V. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders arid Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. ITA N0S.S7I, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 c& 966 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 i ' I I ' z-S Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB). 30..In sum, it was explained by this Court in CIT v. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. {supra) that: "under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Svp Builders (India) Ltd

ITA/872/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…299 ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CI V. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders arid Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. ITA N0S.S7I, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 c& 966 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 i ' I I ' z-S Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB). 30..In sum, it was explained by this Court in CIT v. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. {supra) that: "under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquor India Ltd

ITA/876/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…299 ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CI V. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders arid Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. ITA N0S.S7I, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 c& 966 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 i ' I I ' z-S Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB). 30..In sum, it was explained by this Court in CIT v. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. {supra) that: "under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquor India Ltd

ITA/965/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…299 ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CI V. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders arid Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. ITA N0S.S7I, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 c& 966 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 i ' I I ' z-S Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB). 30..In sum, it was explained by this Court in CIT v. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. {supra) that: "under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Svp Builders (India) Limited

ITA/871/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

…ITR 268. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del), CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) and CIT v. N.R. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:45:22 ITA Nos.871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 88…

Harakchand K Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2810/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…le to be quashed as the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2005-06 was bad in law. In support thereof, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del). 4.2 The learned D.R. for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that even though there was some variation in the reasons recorded by the AO, made available to assessee, vis-à-vis the facts and findings of the AO in the order of assessment, assessee had participated in the completion of assessment proceedin…

Harakchand K Gada (HUF), Mumbai vs. It 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2800/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…le to be quashed as the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2005-06 was bad in law. In support thereof, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del). 4.2 The learned D.R. for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that even though there was some variation in the reasons recorded by the AO, made available to assessee, vis-à-vis the facts and findings of the AO in the order of assessment, assessee had participated in the completion of assessment proceedin…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/235/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…ause some of creditors/share applicants could not be found at the addresses given," would not give Revenue a right to invoke Section 68 without any additional material to support such a move.” It was held likewise in Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110. 33. In CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) it was held that the point at which the initial onus on the Assessee to prove the unexplained credit would stand discharged depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed: “Circumstances might require that there should be some evidence of po…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/236/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…ause some of creditors/share applicants could not be found at the addresses given," would not give Revenue a right to invoke Section 68 without any additional material to support such a move.” It was held likewise in Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110. 33. In CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) it was held that the point at which the initial onus on the Assessee to prove the unexplained credit would stand discharged depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed: “Circumstances might require that there should be some evidence of po…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/234/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…ause some of creditors/share applicants could not be found at the addresses given," would not give Revenue a right to invoke Section 68 without any additional material to support such a move.” It was held likewise in Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110. 33. In CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) it was held that the point at which the initial onus on the Assessee to prove the unexplained credit would stand discharged depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed: “Circumstances might require that there should be some evidence of po…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 188/DEL/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…lethora of decisions in support of his preposition viz. CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 3751/Del/2011 in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. ITO and on the decision rendered by ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar.…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 187/DEL/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…lethora of decisions in support of his preposition viz. CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 3751/Del/2011 in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. ITO and on the decision rendered by ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar.…

CIT vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd

ITA - 643 / 2011HC Delhi21 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(i)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…12 material which he had before him that the income had escaped assessment. In our considered opinion, the decision rendered therein is not applicable to the factual matrix in the case at hand. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi), the Division Bench had noted that certain companies were used as conduits but the assessee had, at the stage of original assessment, furnished the names of the companies with which it had entered into trans- actions and the Assessing Officer was made aware of the situation and further the reason recorded does not indicate applicat…

ITA 643/2011 vs. India Terminal Connector System Ltd

ITA/643/2011HC Delhi21 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(i)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…12 material which he had before him that the income had escaped assessment. In our considered opinion, the decision rendered therein is not applicable to the factual matrix in the case at hand. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi), the Division Bench had noted that certain companies were used as conduits but the assessee had, at the stage of original assessment, furnished the names of the companies with which it had entered into trans- actions and the Assessing Officer was made aware of the situation and further the reason recorded does not indicate applicat…

Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA/1324/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.972 of 2009, ITA No.1324 of 2008, ITA No.29 of 2010, ITA' No.1228 of 2010, ITA No.1229 of 2010, ITA No.1230 of 2010, ITA No.1710/2010, ITA No.8 of 2011, ITA No.339 of 2011, ITA No.613 of 2011 and ITA No.726 of 2011 Reserved on: 25th November, 2011 % Pronounced on: 23rd December, 2011 1) ITA' No.972/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi VERSUS Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 2) ITA No.1324/2008 Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd. VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 3) ITA No.29[2010 Commissioner of Income Tax…

Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA - 1324 / 2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.972 of 2009, ITA No.1324 of 2008, ITA No.29 of 2010, ITA' No.1228 of 2010, ITA No.1229 of 2010, ITA No.1230 of 2010, ITA No.1710/2010, ITA No.8 of 2011, ITA No.339 of 2011, ITA No.613 of 2011 and ITA No.726 of 2011 Reserved on: 25th November, 2011 % Pronounced on: 23rd December, 2011 1) ITA' No.972/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi VERSUS Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 2) ITA No.1324/2008 Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd. VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 3) ITA No.29[2010 Commissioner of Income Tax…