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

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ded are vague and unsubstantiated. Thus the reassessment based on such reasons is bad in law and requires to be cancelled. In this regard, the assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P Ltd. vs. ITO-329 ITR 110 (Annexure-5) wherein the Court has held as under: "Reassessment-Reason to believe-Absence of material or rational belief-AO was made aware of the situation by the Investigation Wing and there is no mention that the companies who had invested shares in petitioner company were fictitious- What is mentioned is that these companies were used as condu…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ded are vague and unsubstantiated. Thus the reassessment based on such reasons is bad in law and requires to be cancelled. In this regard, the assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P Ltd. vs. ITO-329 ITR 110 (Annexure-5) wherein the Court has held as under: "Reassessment-Reason to believe-Absence of material or rational belief-AO was made aware of the situation by the Investigation Wing and there is no mention that the companies who had invested shares in petitioner company were fictitious- What is mentioned is that these companies were used as condu…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ded are vague and unsubstantiated. Thus the reassessment based on such reasons is bad in law and requires to be cancelled. In this regard, the assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P Ltd. vs. ITO-329 ITR 110 (Annexure-5) wherein the Court has held as under: "Reassessment-Reason to believe-Absence of material or rational belief-AO was made aware of the situation by the Investigation Wing and there is no mention that the companies who had invested shares in petitioner company were fictitious- What is mentioned is that these companies were used as condu…

Sbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7791/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel and Shri Rajesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Additional CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ded is mechanical, even the approval given by the Additional Commissioner is mechanical and without application of any independent mind. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions :- (i) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that it is a case wh…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4861/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income-tax Officer, vs. Jai Gajanan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ward 13(12), New Delhi. E-292, IInd Floor, Old Double Storey Lane, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. PAN-AABCJ6528Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. D.C. Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 of…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…/2015 dated 22.4.2016 Banke Bihari Properties (P) Ltd. v. ITO ITA No. 6558/D/2014 dated 31.8.2016 R.K. Garg Developers (P) Ltd. v. ITO 21. 299 ITR 383 (Del) CIT vs Atul Jain dated 23.5.2007 22. ITR 285 (Del) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. dated 27.4.2010 23. 329 ITR 110 (Del) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs ITO dated 18 October 2010 24. 338 ITR 51 (Del) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO dated 21.7.2011 25. ITA No. 1395/2008 (Del) Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. CIT dated 31.8.2012 26. 357 ITR 24 (Del) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. dated 7.5.2013 27. 357 ITR 330 (Del) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. dated 20.5.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of holding the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Central Circle-23, Room No. Ltd., 359, E-2, Ara Centre, B-44, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Jangpura –B, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaace8941P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Commissioner of Income V/s SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Atul Jain and Vinita Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Delhi) & Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. V/s Income Tax Officer, 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) the gist of which have been provided in paras 5.6, 5.7 & 5.8 (supra).” 11. In the case of CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd(supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A), the reassessment was held invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer as the assessment was reopened on the direction of the Additional Commissioner of Income-ta…

Rajiv Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the appellant’s are allowed

ITA 7061/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

M/S. Anjli Metal Overseas Prop. Neeraj Rathore, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the appellant’s are allowed

ITA 7059/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Ajay Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2723/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Ajay Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Sadhna Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2721/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Sadhna Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2720/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Jyoti Engineering Works, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2719/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Anil Khubchandani, Ulhasnagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhanil Khubchandani Acit Circle- 2 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, (Ulhasnagar) 501, Dev Corpra, Cadbury Junction, Kopat, Vs. Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Thane-400601. Kalyan-421301. Pan: Abipk4770G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…in ITA No. 3049/Mum/2016 dated 20.12.2017, ITO vs. Shri Nikhil Vinod Agarwal in ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 dated 13.10.2017, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 0051, Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110, CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue strongly opposed the contention of ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that objection of 5 ITA No. 6300 Mum 2017-Anil Khubchandani the assessee was duly considered and disposed of by speaking order and have been served upon the assessee, which has been cl…

Rajender Parsad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7060/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Rajender Parsad Vs. The I.T.O Prop. M/S. Priya Enterprises Ward 63(3) 5897/2, Basti Harphool Singh, New Delhi Sadar Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan : Anlpp 8555 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…the assessment on the basis of very same information which was considered in the case in hand and while quashing the reopening, the bench had considered the following judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd 329 ITR 110. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “ 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 clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention tha…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reported in 311 ITR 38, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 285, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 10 329 ITR 110, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. G & Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 and Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 677. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajiv Agarwal & Ors. vs. ACIT reported in 395 ITR 255 to the proposition that wh…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/s Gorika Investment and Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531SG Ward-10(2), Complex, DC Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACG2462K Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv., & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.02.2018…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Alook Finetrade P Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 180/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2005-06 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s Alok Fintrade (P) Ltd., 411, 3rd Floor, Shalimar Complex, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jaipur. Church Road, M.I. Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECA 6776 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 20/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.…

Damodar Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 515/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 cuke M/s Damodar Oil Mills Company Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Ward 4(1), G-101, Vijay Laxmi Apartment- Jaipur. II, Bhaskar Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACD 6122 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj…