Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. ACIT

362 ITR 72Reported decision2013#17830 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

within four yearssection 153a(1)(b)mere change of opinionsection 153a(1)direct tax vivad se vishwaschange of opinionsearch assessmenttangible materialregular assessmentreason to believereopening of assessmentvivad se vishwas

Judgments citing Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. ACIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. R.B. ENTERPRISES, DEHRADUN

ITA 4/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…vt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no indication in his reopening reasons extracted hereinabove that t…

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3501/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…vt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no indication in his reopening reasons extracted hereinabove that t…

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3500/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…vt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no indication in his reopening reasons extracted hereinabove that t…

THE ITO, WARD-2,, ANAND vs. SHRI GAURANG RAMANBHAI PATEL, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: D. K. Parikh, AR
Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)

…dicial decisions relied upon by the A.O. in the assessment order. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the ratio of Hon’ble Gujarat’s decision in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Transport vs. CIT [2013] 362 ITR 72 is applicable to the present case, without appreciating the Ld. CIT (A) in para 3.3.2 of appellate order held “There was undoubtedly sufficient material before the Assessing Officer that provisions of section 40(A)3 and 40(a)(ia) were not complied with particularly when the Assessing Officer has not mentioned about these sections in any details in…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. VOITH PAPER FABRICS INDIA LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6719/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd, Vs. Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 113-114A, New Cgo Complex, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aabcp0441Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Kr. Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17

…ith the order of the Ld. assessing officer preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who per order dated 8/10/2015 has held that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by judgment of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in case of Citibank transport versus ACIT 362 ITR 72 and before the engineers versus 80 354 ITR 211 is the assessment is being reopen on the basis of the opinion which is not permissible in law. He further held that while issuing the notice under section 148 the reasons recorded does not show that the income has escaped due to failure on part of the appellant to disclose all material facts in origin…

Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. ACIT (362 ITR 72) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax