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

302 ITR 275High Court2008#5594 most cited

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

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…

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

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…

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…

J.D. SONS STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1060 & 1061/DEL/2015 Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2009-10 J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT, B-17, First Floor, Circle-II, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad. Faridabad. TAN/PAN: AAACJ9814A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 05 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER, AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned ord…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. FANCY DIAMONDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () C.O. No.80/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit – 5(1)(2) Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Vs. Ltd., 111 Prasad Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Opera House, Mumbai Mumbai 400 020 400 004 Pan No. Aaacf3325J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, D.R

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr. (2008) 302 ITR 275 (Mad). 9. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties in context of the aforesaid issue under consideration i.e validity of the reopening of the assessee‟s case u/s 147 of the Act. Before adverting any further, we think it fit to cull out the „reasons to believe‟ on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopen…

SEAWOOD HOSPITALITY & REALTY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC) 3 (4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed on the legal aspect of quashing of reopening of assessment

ITA 92/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Seawoods Hospitality & Vs. Dcit(Cc)-3(4), Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor B/306-309, Business Dynasty Park Air India Building Jb Nagar, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Nariman Point Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No.Aamcs1472M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Sukaniya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Cc)-3(4), B/306-309, Business Dynasty Mumbai Park, J B Nagar, Opp. Sangam Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor Cinema, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs9585J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Seawood Hospitaly & Realty P. Ltd. & M/S. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…ent. c. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) on the aspect of sufficiency of reasons while reopening the assessment. d. Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 302 ITR 275 wherein it was held that information from Enforcement Directorate showing inflation of purchases could be a good ground for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. e. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investment Ltd., reported in 333 ITR 146 and the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of Shalimar Buildcon 136 TTJ 701 wherein…

ARUN KUMAR DALMIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6546/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Arun Kumar Dalmia Huf Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), 1010, Maker Chambers V, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. 400021. Pan No. Aaeha0173J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR

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

…ng verify all the documents ; now raising the question whether Joint/Additional Commissioner has applied his mind is not warranted at the appellate stage, (ii) reopening done u/s 148 is valid in view of the decision in Sterlite Industries (Delhi) Ltd. v. ACIT 302 ITR 275 (Mad) and AGR Investments Ltd. v. Additional CIT 333 ITR 146 (Delhi), (iii) there was no response by M/s Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to the notice u/s 133(6) issued by the AO. On the basis of the above facts, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.8,06,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee file…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. IDM AGRO BIO TECH LIMITED , MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5805/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ganese Ore Co. Limited (1991) 191 ITR 66 (SC) • Sri Krishna Private Limited (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) • Information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases- notice issued u/s 148 valid. (Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd vs ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 • Information from Investigation Wing- notice 148 issued on the basis of such letter is valid. AGR Investment Ltd vsAddl. CIT (Del) 333 ITR 146 Shafcnar Buucon P LW Vs ITO (ITAT. Jaipur) 136 TTJ 701 It is important to point out that there was no assessment or reassessment prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148. It is a settled legal proposition tha…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2