Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (

416 ITR 435Reported decision#9772 most cited

What is Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT ( authority for?

The Assessing Officer must have prima facie grounds and must provide reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. A vague feeling that transactions might be bogus is insufficient to reopen an assessment.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Shah v. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. · 416 ITR 435 · section 148 · section 151(2) · prima facie grounds · reopening assessment · fishing inquiry · material facts necessary for assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hsection 148(2)section 80hhcsection 151(2)material facts necessary for assessmentsection 80hhsection 2(14)section 56(2)section 2(24)fair market valuesection 56international transaction

Judgments citing Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…d. The Assessing Officer in the guise of power to reopen ai assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and see] to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment.” (c) In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. ((416 ITR 435)(SC)), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the AO must have prima facie grounds for issuing notice u/s 148. The operative part is reproduced as under: “Held, (i) that the Income-tax Officer had not even come to a prima fade conclusion that the loan transactions to which he referred were not genuine transactions : he appeared to have only a v…

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and…

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and…

Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 587/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 92B(1)

….2,58,94,765/- relating to excess money paid on purchase of shares and (b) Rs.2,50,95,228/- relating to interest charged on deemed loan. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 20th February, 2019 reported as PCIT vs. PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd (416 ITR 435)(Bom) has dismissed the appeal of the revenue upholding the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. The above said ground no.3 raised by the assessee in AY 2012-13 relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by charging notional interest by treating the equity investments as deemed loan. We notice that an identical adjustment made in AY 2010-11 has…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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

…Year: 2011-12 M/s Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded and therefore the reopening is bad in law. It is needless to mention t…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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

…Year: 2011-12 M/s Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded and therefore the reopening is bad in law. It is needless to mention t…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2757 & 2758/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) DCIT – Central Circle – 3(4) v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., Central Range -3 Patel Estate Road Room No. 1915, 19th Floor Jogeswari (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400102 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACP2567L Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos. 259 &260/MUM/2018 [ARISING OUT OF ITA Nos. 2757 & 2758 /MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10)] M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd.…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2757/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2757 & 2758/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) DCIT – Central Circle – 3(4) v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., Central Range -3 Patel Estate Road Room No. 1915, 19th Floor Jogeswari (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400102 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACP2567L Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos. 259 &260/MUM/2018 [ARISING OUT OF ITA Nos. 2757 & 2758 /MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10)] M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd.…

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

…(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Bom) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the judgments mentioned supra, the assumption of jurisdiction under sectio…

Income Tax Officer 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manhattan Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R
Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) (Bombay HC) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi HC) 8. Swatik Safe Deposit & Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (265 Taxman 164) (Bombay HC) 7 M/s. Manhattan Impex Pvt. Ltd. 9. NuPower Renewable Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT WPNo.3618 of 2018…

Im.Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As M/S.Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…le Gujrat High Court in the case of Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) M/s. IM Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as M/s. Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.) 4. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) 5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) 6. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) 7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed t…

Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT ( (416 ITR 435) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax