STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

Q: How many judgments cite STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER (302 ITR 275), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 144, Section 271(1)(c), Section 69A.

302 ITR 275High Court2008#4574 most cited

What is STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER authority for?

Information from the Enforcement Directorate indicating inflated purchases can serve as a valid basis for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, initiating reassessment proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sterlite Industries India Ltd v ACIT · section 148 · reassessment · information from Enforcement Directorate · inflated purchases · tangible material · reasons to believe · section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 159(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 147(a)full and true disclosure section 148(2)trc section 151(1)infrastructure facility maximum marginal rate live link borrowed satisfaction tangible material reopening of assessment

Judgments citing STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

IMRAN AHMAD,MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3490/DEL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 139Section 147Section 148

…JESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC), PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO &ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.). It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. PurshotamDassBangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) that the information received from the Deputy Director (Inv.) constitutes valid information and reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT 2…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…ITA No. 1035/Del/ 2025 & CO 118/Del/2025 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Kumar THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E”NEWDELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2nd II-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor CGO Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 PAN No. AEAPK1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal adv Date of hearing 27.10.2025 Date…

ZAHIR HUSSAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP CIR-9(5), CHENNAI

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

ITA 52/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2019 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Abitha Banu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

…as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is bad in law. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2009] 178 Taxman 409/[2008] 305 ITR 339 (Mad.), has also held that when a notice u/s. Zahir Hussain :- 8 -: 148 of the Act, is without jurisdiction, especially in cases beyond four years, where there is no failure on the part of the assessee, to fully and truly disclose all material facts, the proceedings deserves to be quashed simplicitor. Accordingly, the reopening of assessment is…

SUBHASH SHAH,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Subhash Shah, vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), Prop. M/s Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana MFC 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (PAN: AYNPS4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Ld. C…

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

…ng such a belief, it cannot be said that the issuance of notice was invalid......." ……………………………. ……………………………. 14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the notice for reopening which was based on information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases made by the assessee." 17. In the result, petition is dismissed. 18. All the above observations are only for the purpose of dealing with the petitioner’s challenge to the notice of reopening and would not limit…

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 176 ii) ITO Vs. Gurinder Kuar (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189 iii) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 7 3.4 For acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. is required to have in his possession certain material or information on the basis of which he could prima-facie have reason to believe that income escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rattan Gupta Vs. CIT 23…

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v. Uol and Ors: 451 ITR 320 (Cal HC)  PCIT. GRD Commodities Ltd.: 149 taxmann.com 233 (Cal HC)  Eveready Industries India Lad vs. JCIT 243 ITR 540 (Gauhati)  CIT vs. Smt Paramjit Jaur: 168 Taxman 39 (P&H HC)  Sterlite Industries (India) Lituted vs. ACIT: 305 ITR 339 (Mad)  Intimate Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: ITA No. 4498/Del/2010 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd. 7. We have heard both the parties at length and have perused the material available on the record. We have perused the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment beyond four years. The reason recorded by the AO for reopening…

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

…the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO(W.P.(C) No. 8067 of 2010 dated 21-7-2011) (d) DCIT vs. Mrs. Rainee Singh 125 TTJ(Del) 816 ITA No.336 /RJT/2023 Kumar Ramesh Sahu vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2009-10 (e) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT & ANR (305 ITR 339) (f) Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Smt Sohandevi Sodani 303/TR 342(Raj) 12. According to written statement, Reopening was based on information passed on by another Ld. AO; it is a case of another Ld. AO not having jurisdiction over the Appellant stating that it is observed that the assessee has given unsecured loan to th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SUKANIYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 3711/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 68

…C.\nRajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) on the\naspect of sufficiency of reasons while reopening the assessment.\nd.\nDecision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries\n(India) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 302 ITR 275 wherein it was held that information\nfrom Enforcement Directorate showing inflation of purchases could be a good ground\nfor issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act.\ne.\nDecision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investment\nLtd., reported in 333 ITR 146 and the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of Shalimar\nBuildcon 136 TTJ 701 w…

M/S. SUKANIYA PROPERTIES, PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 3309/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 68

…\nC. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) on the\naspect of sufficiency of reasons while reopening the assessment.\nd. Decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries\n(India) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 302 ITR 275 wherein it was held that information\nfrom Enforcement Directorate showing inflation of purchases could be a good ground\nfor issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act.\ne. Decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investment\nLtd., reported in 333 ITR 146 and the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of Shalimar\nBuildcon 136 TTJ 701 wh…

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…147 of the Act. The reason to\nbelieve has been appropriately understood by the Assessing Officer and there is\nmaterial on the basis of which the notice was issued.\"\n1. In the judgement in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT\n&Anr.(2008) 302 ITR 275, Hon'ble High Court of Madras, has held:-\nThe definite stand of the department was that the previous sanction from the\nCommissioner had been obtained and credible information had been received\nrelated to the year 2000-01. It was also stated that an adjudication order dated 22-\n8-2007 had already been passed and dispatched to the assessee but…

ACIT,CORPORATE CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…566, as well as in this court judgment reported in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 674 and came to the correct conclusion.” iii) The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in [2008] 305 ITR 339, has observed as under:- & CO No.67/CHNY/2024 “34. From the records, it is clear that the Revenue failed to satisfy that the assessing officer had reasons to believe that (i) the income, profits and gains, chargeable to income tax, have been under-assessed and (ii) the assessing officer had also reason to believe that such under-assessment had o…

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC), PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO & ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.).It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Purshotam Dass Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) that the information received from the Deputy Director (Inv.) constitutes valid information and reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT…

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TULSYAN AND SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 812/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4Section 68

…d. Thus, the said decision is also distinguishable on the factual score." 14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in MANU/TN/0471/2008MANU/TN/0471/2008 : [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the notice for reopening which was based on information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases made by the assessee. 13. The decisions cited before us do not involve controversy as we are examining in this petition. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal (supra) as noted, the Supreme Court held the re- opening…

AARADHNA DEVELPOERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 179/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

….com 341 (Guj), Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs Purushottam Dass Banger (1997) 90 Taxman 541 SC/ 227 ITR 362 SC, ITO Selected Dalurband Coal Co (P) Ltd (1996) 217 ITR 597 and Madras High Court in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd Vs ACIT ( 2009) 177 Taxman 311/ 302 ITR 275- Madras. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also gone through all the case laws relied by the le representatives of the parties. There is no dispute that eight group entity agreed to contribute their land for development with Global Enterprises, w…

AARADHNA DEVELPOERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 178/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

AARADHNA DEVELPOERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 177/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

GYAN CHAND SHARMA,PALWAL vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Gyan Chand Sharma, Vs Ito, H.No.436, Adarsh Colony, Ward-1(3), Palwal, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan-Bhgps2052E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC), PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO & ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.). The Pr.CIT has gone through the entire material on record and has applied her mind before giving approval u/s 151 of the Act. 16. In view of the facts and discussion as above, it is held that there is no infirmity in the reasons recorded by the AO u/s 147 of the Act and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The same are held as valid. Thus, G…

INTIME REALTY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6357/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…5.2. The ld. DR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that reopening of assessment could be made where information has been received from external agencies as under:-  “Sterlite Industries(lndia) Ltd. V/s. ACIT (MAD) (302 ITR 275) where it was held that information from Enforcement Directorate showing possible inflation of purchases ' notice issued u/s.148 valid'.  In AGR Investment Ltd. v/s, Addl.CIT & Anr.(Del) (333 ITR 146)  Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs ITO ITAT Jaipur (136 TTJ 701) wherein it was held that information from investigation Wing ' notice u/s. 148 issu…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2