Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others

293 ITR 548High Court2007#2379 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.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 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 147Section 148Section 151Section 115JBSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 285basanction under section 151section 285section 151(1)section 151(2)material facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147non application of mindsection 10alive linknon-application of mindtangible material

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

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of jurisdictional requirements and settled legal position. In this context the court re-visited the judgments rendered in Andhra Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 534/225 ITR 447 (SC); Siemens Information System Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 168 Taxman 209/[2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bombay)/2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1292; NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 229/211 Taxman 185 (Mag.)/346 ITR 361 (Bombay)/2012 SCC OnLine Bom 195; ITO v. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361/255 Taxman 152/404 ITR 10 (SC)/(2018) 6 SCC 685; GKN Sinter Metals Ltd v ACIT [2015] [2015] 55 taxmann.com 438/232 Taxman 386/371…

SH. ATAR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shuklai.T.A. No. 2732/Del/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) Sh. Atar Singh Vs Income Tax Officer House No. 5, Village, Gazipur, Ward 1(1) Gazipur Road, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121005 122001 Pan: Dmpps6598B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S.S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 69A

…e donation 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.” 19. 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…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent in Multiscreen Media (No. 2) [2010] 324 ITR 54 (Bom) also adverted to a decision of the Division Bench in Siemens Information System Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom). The Division Bench held that the judgment in Siemens Information System [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom) would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment for an earlier year on the basis of fresh material which has come in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year. 17. Now, in this background and considering these tests, the facts of the present case would have to be evaluated. The assessee, in the present case…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent in Multiscreen Media (No. 2) [2010] 324 ITR 54 (Bom) also adverted to a decision of the Division Bench in Siemens Information System Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom). The Division Bench held that the judgment in Siemens Information System [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom) would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment for an earlier year on the basis of fresh material which has come in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year. 17. Now, in this background and considering these tests, the facts of the present case would have to be evaluated. The assessee, in the present case…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent in Multiscreen Media (No. 2) [2010] 324 ITR 54 (Bom) also adverted to a decision of the Division Bench in Siemens Information System Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom). The Division Bench held that the judgment in Siemens Information System [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom) would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment for an earlier year on the basis of fresh material which has come in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year. 17. Now, in this background and considering these tests, the facts of the present case would have to be evaluated. The assessee, in the present case…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent in Multiscreen Media (No. 2) [2010] 324 ITR 54 (Bom) also adverted to a decision of the Division Bench in Siemens Information System Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom). The Division Bench held that the judgment in Siemens Information System [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom) would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment for an earlier year on the basis of fresh material which has come in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year. 17. Now, in this background and considering these tests, the facts of the present case would have to be evaluated. The assessee, in the present case…

SANTOSH RANI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH PARVEEN KALYAN,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…evenue in SLP 42379/2017 Dt: 09.02.2018;  CIT vs Suren International Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 24 (Del);  Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del);  CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H);  Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548 (Bom.);  Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer 411 ITR 207 (Bom);  DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and others ITA No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019, M/s Superior Technologies P Ltd ITA No.2269/Del/2017. M/s Shiv Sai Infrastructure P Ltd ITA No.2527/Del/2017 and ITO vs Randeep Investment (P) Ltd ITA No.4365 & 4005/Del/2015 dt: 26.03.2019. B.…

ITO-19(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRITI BHARAT PAREKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hora of other judgments and decisions by the various courts of law on the point that mere change of opinion cannot be per se reason to reopen as under:- German Remedies Ltd vs. DCIT & Ors (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom.) Siemens Information System Ltd vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (BOM) Techspan India (P) Ltd & Anr Vs. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Del) (Assessment Year 2001-2002) Karthikeya International vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All) Godrej Agrovet Ltd 323 ITR 97 (Bom) Aakash Land Developers ITA No. 7350/M/2008 & 7351/M/2008 dated 29/10/2010 6.22 Further, the provisions of sec 147 of the Act can be applied wherein in the ori…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…enish Industries Ltd. v. ITO (271 ITR 340) (Guj.) * Rallies India Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 54(Bom) 21 ITA No.1977 & CO 79/Mum/2023 (AY 2003-04) M/s.Tata Mortors Limited. * SGS India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 292 ITR 93 (Bom) Siemens Information Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom) * Simens Housing Corporation Ltd. (CA No. 15067 of 2011) dated 12 March 2012 The learned CIT (A) too relying on order of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT dated 17th July 2019 (ITA No.3333,4823/Mum/2011) held that provision for deferred tax and provision for diminution in value of investment and provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be subject matt…

GANESH CHHGANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2101/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Cit (A) Nfac, Plot No. 899 Jassawala Wadi, Delhi. Juhu Tara Road, Juju, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aanpj 1550 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…ion received from Investigation Wing, the re received from Investigation Wing, the re-opening would be unjustified opening would be unjustified and therefore liable to be quashed. and therefore liable to be quashed. a) Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs ACIT 293 ITR 548 a) Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs ACIT 293 ITR 548 a) Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs ACIT 293 ITR 548 (Bombay H.C.) (Bombay H.C.) b) Shamshad Khan Vs ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Delhi HC) b) Shamshad Khan Vs ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Delhi HC) b) Shamshad Khan Vs ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Delhi HC) c) Pr. CCIT Vs SNG Developers Ltd 404 ITR 312 (Delhi HC) CCIT Vs…

GM OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 GM Overseas, Vs ACIT, A-2/132, Prateek Apartments, Circle-48(1), Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFG2529A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2019 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to assess…

VIJAYSHREE FOOD PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…to the records, then assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law:- i. CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319( P&H) ii. Pr. CIT Vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312(Del) iii. Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265;(Del) iv. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548.(Bom) v. CIT Vs Rainee Singh 330 ITR 417(Del) vi. VSR Enterprises- ITA No 1856/Del/2016- dated 17.02.2021. vii. Shri Natrajan Monie- ITA NO 1817/Del/2017- dated-07.12.2020. viii. SJM international in ITA No-3762/Del/2018 dated 09.08.2021 8.7 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the expression “reason” means cause or justificat…

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

…09.02.2018; iv. CIT vs Suren International Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 24 (Del); v. Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del), vi. CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H); vii. Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom.); viii. Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bon.); ix. DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and others ITA No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019 x. M/s SPJ Hotels P Ltd ITA No.2857/Del/2017, xi. M/s Superior Build well P Ltd ITA No.3301/Del/2017, xii. M/s Superior Technologies P Ltd ITA No.2269/Del/2017, xiii. M…

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

…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.” 7.3. 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, 18 ITA.No.2106/Del./2013 Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., [Formerly known as M/s. Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., and then as Mamram Developers…

M/S vs. R ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHIVS.ITO, 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

…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 : 14 “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 secti…

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

…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.4183/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Sungrow Impex The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Plot No.21, [vs. G/F, DDA Site, Shanker Ward – 24 (3), Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 110 005. New Delhi – 110 001. PAN AAMCS3769D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Asse…

SAVITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 22(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 1389/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1389/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s Savita Holdings Pvt. ITO Ltd. Ward 22(4) [vs. B-1/14, Rana Pratap Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No. AABCS3394P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-31, New Delhi dat…

KARAN KHURANA ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1783/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Karan Khurana, The Income Tax Officer, 113, Dilkhush Building, Ward-48(2), Room [vs. Tilak Bazar, Delhi – 006. No.115, Drum Shape PAN AGDPK4271C Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed again…

BISHAN SHARUP GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8083/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…tainable in law and the notice issued under section 147 of the Act was to be quashed.” 21 ITA.No.8083/Del./2019 Shri Bishan Sharup Gupta, New Delhi. 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…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

ITA 1559/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14

…. Year 2009-10 9 proceedings, it is held that action of the Assessing Officer u/s!47 was justified. The reliance placed by the Authorized Representative on Techspan India P Ltd Vs ITO [2006] 283 ITR 212 (Del) and Siemens Information System Ltd Vs ACIT [2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bom) was misplaced and after considering the material before me and judicial decisions cited in this para, it is held that the reopening of the assessment was valid and the same is upheld. 15. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the learned AR for the assessee objected on the validity of the initiation of the proceedings in purs…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others (293 ITR 548) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax