How many judgments cite Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others (293 ITR 548), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 115JB, Section 133(6).

Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others

293 ITR 548High Court2007#2377 most cited

What is Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others authority for?

Reopening an assessment is unsustainable if the reasons provided are based on a mistaken belief about the applicability of a legal provision to the assessment year in question.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT · section 147 · section 10A · reopening assessment · mistaken belief · incorrect applicability of law · assessment year · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 115JB Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 285ba sanction under section 151 section 285 section 151(1)section 151(2)material facts necessary for assessment first proviso to section 147 non application of mind section 10a live link non-application of mind tangible material

Judgments citing Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1856/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ion made. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was unsustainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 6.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held as under : “The petitioner had several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. In 30 ITA.No.1856/Del./2016 M/s. VSR Enterprises, New Delhi. response to the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnis…

Anita Chaudhary, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Khatuli

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

…elopers Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 [Bom.]. It may also be noted here that though A.O. has referred to the commission earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal, but, no addition have been made in the re- assessment order. Considering the above facts in the light of above Judgments and Order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Abrar Ahmad Qasimi, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-46…

R.S. Shares & Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8031/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…udgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312; 3. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265; 4. Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548. The crux of the above judgments have been that in case incorrect, wrong and non existing reasons are recorded by the 22 ITA.No.8031/Del./2018 AO for reopening of the assessment and that AO failed to verify the information received from Investigation wing, the reopening of the assessment would be unjustified and is liable to be quashed. 8. Consi…

Vikas Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 9742/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…tion made. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was unsustainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 6.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held as under : “The petitioner had several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. In response to the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnished by the authority had quoted the provisions of section 1…

Neel Kant Chaudhary, Muzaffarnafar vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Khatauli

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…elopers Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 [Bom.]. It may also be noted here that though A.O. has referred to the commission earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal, but, no addition have been made in the re-assessment order. Considering the above facts in the light of above Judgments and Order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Abrar Ahmad Qasimi, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-46(…

Dheeraj Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 46(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 6701/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)Section 151(3)Section 69A

…pers Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 [Bom.]. It may also be noted here that though A.O. has referred to the commission earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal, but, no addition have been made in the re- assessment order. Considering the above facts in the light of above Judgments and Order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Abrar Ahmad Qasimi, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward…

Natrajan Monie, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1817/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148

…ion made. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was unsustainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 6.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held as under : 16 ITA.No.1817/Del./2017 Shri Natrajan Monie, Gurgaon. “The petitioner had several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. In response to the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnished…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs DCIT, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/o Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, KLJ Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. PAN: AABCS2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…1 (Del) 10. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd, 296 ITR 342(Del) 11. Goetze Ltd. 321 ITR 431 (Del) 12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 15. Siemens Information. 295 ITR 333 (Bom) 16. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 200(Mad) 17. Bhavesh Developers, 229 CTR 160(Bom) 18. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. JCIT: 245 ITR 645 (Cal) 19. Mercury Travels Ltd.. Vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 20. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. ACIT: 322 ITR 369 (Cal) 21. Aventis Pharma Limited, 323 ITR 570(Bom) 23. Usha International Limited, 348 IT…

Ak Lumber Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8761/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…a) except that in this case there is no assessment under section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Shri Devki Nandan Bindal, Delhi. 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held that "when notice for reassessment basing on non-existing reasons and provisions inapplicable at relevant time - Not constituting reasons to believe. Notice invalid." The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) held as under : "Held, (i) that the Tribunal was right…

M/S. Bull Riders Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…haziabad, Uttar Pradesh. reopening of the assessment was unsustainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 5.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held as under : “The petitioner had several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. In response to the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnished by the authority had quoted the provisions of section…

S.N. Arora/Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

ITA 4252/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ion made. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was unsustainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 9.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held as under : “The petitioner had several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. In response to the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnished by the authority had quoted the provisions of section…

S.N. Arora/Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

ITA 4251/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…pt that in this case there is no assessment under section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 39 ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Shri Devki Nandan Bindal, Delhi. 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held that “when notice for reassessment basing on non-existing reasons and provisions inapplicable at relevant time – Not constituting reasons to believe. Notice invalid.” The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) held as under : “Held, (i) that the Tribunal was ri…

ACIT 7(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Niyanand Inrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 2255/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6 Th Nityanand Infrastructure Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., Opp Abhudaya Nagar Vs. Rd, Mumbai Post Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacn1981E Co No. 266/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 2255/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10) Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd., Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Abhudaya Nagar Post Vs. Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, M.K. Rd, Mumbai Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv Sh. Rahul K. Hakani, ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01-07-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19-07-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…etting aside the notice dated 28.3.2008. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 14. In another judgment Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bombay) held as under: - “24. In the instant case, the second Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2003-04 on the same set of facts has taken a view which is different from the view taken by the previous Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2001-02, on the interpretation of the same provisions of law. It is possible in the absence of…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…sidered in the case of M/s. KLF Food (India) Ltd., (supra) except that in this case there is no assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom.) held that “when notice for reassessment basing on non-existing reasons and provisions inapplicable at relevant time – Not constituting reasons to believe. Notice invalid.” The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) held as under : “Held, (i) that the Tribunal was right…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

A.C.I.T, Akola Circle, Akola vs. M/S Leben Laboratories Pvt..Ltd, Akola

ITA 235/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ot permissible. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii. Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 349 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 333(Bom); iv. CIT Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd. decided by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2003 on 29-09-2007. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently defended the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has wrongly claimed…

M/S. Leben Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

ITA 459/NAG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…icating on the objections of the assessee prior to framing of reassessment order on merits. 11.1 In this regard the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Siemens Information System Ltd. vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom), ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), Pr. CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 415/2015) by Delhi High Court, CIT vs. M/s Trend Electronics (ITA No. 1867 of 2013) by Bombay High Court. 11.2 The Ld. counsel further submits that on merits the addition is not sustainable because of the following reasons: i. purchases are s…