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

302 ITR 275High Court2008#4567 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.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 159(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 147(a)full and true disclosuresection 148(2)trcsection 151(1)infrastructure facilitymaximum marginal ratelive linkborrowed satisfactiontangible materialreopening of assessment

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

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…

M/S. Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6087/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 6087/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 M/S Narendra Polychem (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Formerly Known As M/S Narendra Ward-13(1), Cold Storage (P) Ltd., 107, New Delhi Patparganj Village, Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn8105D Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…ies that proceeding initiated u/s 147 on the basis of information received from investigation wing, CIB wing, Enforcement Directorate are valid. Reliance is placed on ITO Vs Gurinder Kaur (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275, AGR Investments Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT & Anr (Del) 333 ITR 146, Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Jaipur) 136 TTJ 701. In view of the above, the submission of the appellant is not sustainable.” 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO alleged in the reasons recorded that the persons from whom th…