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

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…ef on the basis of the material before him that income had escaped assessment-Proceedings under s. 147/148 rightly quashed by Tribunal-No substantial question of law arises for consideration. (vii) SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2010) 329 ITR 110 HIGH COURT OF DELHI Where the identity of the companies who had invested in the shares of petitioner- company was not disputed and neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicated independent application of mind by AO, reassessment proceedings were unwarranted and notice issued under s. 148 was…

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 9133/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ded and quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 29 I.T.A. No.9133 & 7921/Del/2019 28. We also bear in mind the observations made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Pvt. Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del) & Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Del.) wherein it was held that it is the basic requirement of law that Assessing Officer himself applied his mind to the underlying material which led him to hold belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such reference to the material is sorely missing. Similar judgements have been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 7921/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ded and quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 29 I.T.A. No.9133 & 7921/Del/2019 28. We also bear in mind the observations made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Pvt. Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del) & Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Del.) wherein it was held that it is the basic requirement of law that Assessing Officer himself applied his mind to the underlying material which led him to hold belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such reference to the material is sorely missing. Similar judgements have been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…d vs. State of Haryana 1993 AIR 1167 (SC) b) Ashok Kumar Sen V/s CIT 132 ITR 707 (Del. HC) c) United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del HC) d) CIT v. Kelvinator India (256 ITR 1, SC) e) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his actio…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…d vs. State of Haryana 1993 AIR 1167 (SC) b) Ashok Kumar Sen V/s CIT 132 ITR 707 (Del. HC) c) United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del HC) d) CIT v. Kelvinator India (256 ITR 1, SC) e) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO - (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) f) Indian Oil Corporation V/s ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC) g) Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 77(A11) h) Madanlal Jindal vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (Cal) i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi High Court) 2.11 While disposing of objection on the matter raised during assessment, the Ld. AO has justified his actio…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. M/S. Roland Educational and Charitable Trust

ITA/25/2022HC Orissa09 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. Parbati Mohapatra

ITA/19/2022HC Orissa08 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ependent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind by AO while recording the reasons - Non application of…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ependent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind by AO while recording the reasons - Non application of…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ependent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind by AO while recording the reasons - Non application of…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ependent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind by AO while recording the reasons - Non application of…

ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2) vs. M/S. Silvex & Company G-1/35 to 37, 47, 48 Epip, Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be hold 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 b…

M/S. Silvex & Company India Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be hold 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 b…

M/S. Raj Metal Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 639/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

…the reassessment proceedings, a fact admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order. The judgment relied upon by the Learned AR also supports the case of the assessee. In the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2009) 329 ITR 110 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that under the circumstances narrated hereinabove the reopening cannot be said to be a valid reopening. The Hon’ble Court has held as under “In the case at hand, as is evincible, the AO was aware of the existence of four companies with whom the assessee had entered into transaction. Both the orders c…

Anirudh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1167/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…cisions in support of the proposition that reopening on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind is invalid:- i) Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) ii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. (2009) 329 ITR 110 iii) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) iv) RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann. Com 348 (Del) v) Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (5) TMT 1428 (Del) vi) G&G Pharma India Ltd. ITA 545/2015 (Del) 6.4 The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the information received by the Ld. AO from Inve…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ITA No.299/Bang/2019 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah N C Colony Near State Bank of Hyderabad ACIT Circle-1 Vs. Hospete 583 201 Bellary PAN NO : AAWPV6572E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narayana K.R., D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed aga…

Rajlaxmi Portfolio Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 6682/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Rajlaxmi Portfolio Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 4033, Naya Bazar, Ward-21(1), Near Pilli Kothi, Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aadcr8106Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashok Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68Section 69Section 69C

…ht any evidence to prove the correctness of allegation that the assessee procured profit in the present case. In light of the binding precedents on this issue by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co.Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110, the re-opening of the assessment cannot be sustained in the present case. Since the re-opening of assessment is based upon purely on guess work hence, cannot be sustained. I therefore, hold that the reasons recorded by the AO do not conform to law as there is a gross non-application of mind. Hence, the impugned order is hereby quashed. Thus, Gro…

Brijesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7437/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…of mind, such reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid being not accordance with law. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006…

Ganesh Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5813/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…of mind, such reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid being not accordance with law. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006…

Rc Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5711/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Sharma, A. RFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…of mind, such reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid being not accordance with law. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. Pr. CIT vs G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR (2016)(Del.) 147 ii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 110(Del.) iii. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR (Del.) 33 iv. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas (I) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee had applied for 5000 shares having face value of Rs.10 each of M/s Swen Television Ltd. in A.Y. 2006…