How many judgments cite Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO?

217 judgments on BharatTax cite Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 151.

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

Issues it is cited on

live link borrowed satisfaction section 148(2)non application of mind material facts necessary for assessment beyond four years tangible material section 151(1)bogus ltcg kelvinator reason to believe escapement of income

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

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

…are quoted in support. I. CIT Vs SFIL Stock broking limited 2010 41 DTR 98 (Del) ii. Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd (Delhi High Court) dated 08.10.2015 iii. Signature Hotels P limited Vs ITO 2011 60 DTR 30 (Del) iv. Sarthak securities P limited Vs ITO 2010 329 ITR 110 (Del) v. Ganga saran & sons P. Ltd. V. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Charanjiv Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015 vii. ACIT Vs Dinesh kumar (ITAT Delhi) dated 31.10.2014 viii. Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015 Section 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment Reassessment proceedings we…

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be held illegal. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110 wherein it has been held as under:- Reassessment Notice Condition precedent Formation of belief that income escaped assessment Assessing Officer treating share application money as bogus accommodation entries – Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine – No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but act…

Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Jalna vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 866/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…7) 384 ITR 147 (Del) (HC) o CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del) (HC) Meenakshi Oversea's Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677 CIT (Del) (HC) o CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del) (HC) Sarthank Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110(Del.) (HC) o Pr. CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.) (HC) o M/s.Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-6(2)(1). o Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1257 of 2016 o Akshar Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT-28(1), Mumbai & Anr Writ Petition N…

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…hat the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind to the information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) and arrive at a belief whether or not any income had escaped assessment." b) Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 329 ITR 110 (DHC) "23. The Assessing Officer was aware of the existence of four companies with whom the assessee had entered into transaction. Both the orders clearly exposit that the Assessing Officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention that these companies are fictitious companies. Neither the reasons in the in…

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…. In fact this information was not with the Assessing Officer till fag end of the reassessment proceedings, a fact admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order. Consequently, the reopening is not valid (Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd 338 ITR 51 (Del) & CIT vs. SFIL Stockbroking Co 325 ITR 285 (Del) followed) c. 2022 (8) TMI 576 - ITAT CHANDIGARH Rajnish Garg Versus The Asst. Cit Tax Circle-6, Ludhiana Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - investment in trade market through broker and manipulated his income by shifting in losses / shifting in prof…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)

…l2019 dated 22.4.2021. 4. H. R. Mehta Hon'ble Bombay High Court 387 ITR 561 Held Assessing Officer under duty to supply third party statement and offer cross examination even though assessee has not asked for. 5. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.). 6. Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del). 7. Judgement dated 19th November, 2015 In ITA No. 108 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P. Limited). 8. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 378 ITR 421. 9. (Del), Rustagi E…

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…e Act on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction is untenable in law. Authorities on this point are the jurisdictional High Court decisions in – a. Pro CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) b. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del) c. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Braking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) C. NO ORDER PASSED AGAINST OBJECTIONS FILED On receipt of the reasons recorded dated 25.03.2011, the assessee filed detailed objections (PB 59). The said objections have never been disposed off through a speaking order before proceeding with and framing the assessment. This in viol…

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be held illegal. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110 wherein it has been held as under: Reassessment – Notice – Condition precedent – Formation of belief that income escaped assessment Assessing Officer treating share application money as bogus accommodation entries Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but ac…

Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle 4-Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…informed what in the report of the investigation wing constituted tangible material for forming a belief, Mr. Goel placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Limited (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.), Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.), Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (supra), Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd.... (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del.) and Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Del). Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court dated 19 November, 2015 in ITA No. 108 o…