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

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

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

ITA 5475/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…

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

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

ITA 5474/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…

Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2279/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 1/04/2022
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…mmodation entries provided by the assessee to certain entities without applying his own mind was led to be not justified. Then Delhi High Court set aside such a notice under Section 147/148 of the Act in the case Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 329 ITR 110/ 195 Taxman 262 (Delhi), after taking note of various judgments delineating the scope of Section 148 of the Act as well as law regarding undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act, the Court held that: "The obtaining factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law. In the case at hand, as is evincible, the…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…c jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity.” 27.10 In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del),it has been held as under: “23. The obtaining factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law. In the case at hand, as is evincible, the assessing officer was aware of the existence of four companies with whom the assessee had entered into transaction. Both the orders 48 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. P…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…keshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Mad…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…keshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Mad…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…keshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Mad…

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…keshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Mad…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…rma India Ltd 384 ITR 147 (Del.); iii. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA 108/2015 (Del); iv. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 0051 (Del) v. CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del); vi. Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del); vii. CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd.ITA No.266/2011 (Del); viii. CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd 378 ITR 351 (Del.); ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported in [2004] 137 TAXMAN 479 (BOM.); x. CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC); xi. M/s Synfonia Tradelinks P Ltd vs ITO (supra) (Del) 24. He further submitt…

Sushil Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3117/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3117/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2007-08) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Sushil Kumar Vs ITO (Prop of M/s Shree Ram Ward-63(3) Overseas), New Delhi 5520 Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi AALPK5068M (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Amit Goel & Sh. Nippun Mittal, CA Respondent by Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 04.10.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against t…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 95/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…Delhi) (HC) iv) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.)(HC) v) CIT v/s Meenakshi Oversea’s Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677(Del) (HC) vi) CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.)(HC) vii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 viii) PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah[2018] 95 Taxmann.com 46 (Guj) HC) ix) Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 254 Taxman 384 (Guj. )(HC) x) Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 41/AGRA/2017, AY: 2010-11 Dtd:01/06/2018 (Agra)(Trib) xi) ITO v. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.) 3.00 ENTIRE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING ARE BASED O…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 94/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…Delhi) (HC) iv) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.)(HC) v) CIT v/s Meenakshi Oversea’s Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677(Del) (HC) vi) CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.)(HC) vii) Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 viii) PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah[2018] 95 Taxmann.com 46 (Guj) HC) ix) Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 254 Taxman 384 (Guj. )(HC) x) Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 41/AGRA/2017, AY: 2010-11 Dtd:01/06/2018 (Agra)(Trib) xi) ITO v. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.) 3.00 ENTIRE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING ARE BASED O…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA Nos.7457, 7458 & 7459/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITA Nos.7466, 7467 & 7468/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ACIT, M/s. Key Tech, Central Circle-1(3), G/B, Shiv Chayya CHS 905, 9th Floor, Ltd., Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Sir M.V. Road, Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe) Andheri(E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAIFK9271B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.7475 & 7476/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ii. Pr. CIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. in iv. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 (Del.) v. CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del.) vi. Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) vii. CIT vs Suprme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. viii. CIT vs Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom.) x. CIT vs Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81(SC) 15. The learned counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted that non-identification of nature of alleg…

Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Pan – Ajxpk 8087H Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, PAN – AJXPK 8087H Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 10/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 28/06/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 4, Hyderabad’s order dated 24/01/2020 for…

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2106/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2003-2004 Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., [Formerly known as M/s. The Income Tax Officer, Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., and then as Mamram vs. Ward – 8 (3), Developers P. Ltd.,] G-18 & 19, Mamram Majesty New Delhi. Mall Plot, Road No.43, Guru Harkishan Marg, Pitampura, Delhi – 034 PAN AAHCS2266E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.…

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…son to believe income has escaped assessment - No independent application of mind to information received from Directorate of 15 Investigation and no prima facie opinion formed- reassessment order invalid”. 6.9. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : [“No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 6.10. The crux of the above Judgments had been that in case incorrect, wrong and non-existing reasons are recorded by the A.O. for reopening of the assessm…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

…nd solely relied on the additions made by the ACIT, CC-19 and failed to apply his own mind and to give his independent findings. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110. The Ld. AR also submitted that reopening of a case u/s 148 is not permissible on borrowed satisfaction of another officer. The pre- requisite condition required for the Assessing Officer is to give his own findings for reopening the case in hand and not to rely upon the findings given by any other officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o…

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

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

ITA 5712/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Gupta Huf, Vs. Ito, C/O-Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-31(4), Chartered Accountants, R. No.1209, Civic Centre, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi-110002 Part-Ii, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaghr9262M

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…nd, 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 7 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. 2…

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…lhi. Tax vs., RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., G and G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., (supra) in which on identical facts reopening of the assessment have been quashed. The Ld. D.R. relied upon certain decisions in support of the contention th…