Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT

39 SOT 514Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4354 most cited

What is Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT authority for?

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT · protective assessment · substantive assessment · section 143(3) · section 69A · income escaping assessment · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132(4)Section 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

substantive assessmentprotective assessmentdate of transferlive linkdumb documentsbeneficial ownersection 292cblock periodsection 57income escaping assessmentloose paperssection 132(4)

Judgments citing Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT

Shri Pravinkumar Valjibhai Pujara, HUF, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 142/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 142/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Pravinkumar Valjibhai Pujara Huf, I.T.O, C-46, Lal Baug, Near Dargah, Vs. Ward-2, Radhanpur, Patan. Dist. Patan-385340

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69

…us in our considered view in the absence of such substantive assessment, the protective assessment cannot survive. In holding so we draw A.Y. 2011-12 6 support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 wherein it was held as under: “Thus, protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment. Thus, substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment.” 6.7 We also note that the ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Ramesh Chand Premra…

Sugam Vanijya Holdings P.Ltd, Bengluru vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9502/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms Suchitra Kamblesugam Vanijya Holdings Vs Dcit Private Limited Circle-24(2) Vr Bengaluru, No. 11B, C.R.Building, Survey No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 Dyvasandra Industrial Area 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru- 560048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2020

Section 143Section 144CSection 32Section 37Section 56Section 57

…here is substantive assessment and thus, the substantive assessment must be made before protective assessment is made. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of MP Ramachandran Vs. DCIT 32 SOT 592 (Mum.) as well as Suresh K Jajoo Vs. ACIT 39 SOT 514 (Mum.). The Ld. AR submitted that a protective assessment has not discussed about the substantive assessment being made in the assessment order but has simply proceeded to make the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee. Without prejudice to the same arguments, the Ld. AR further submitted that during the FY 2011- 12, the assessee issu…

Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 554/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Manoj Kumar Jain, Vs Dcit, R-8/11, Flat No. 700, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aclpj4982H Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…, there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MP Ramchandara Vs. DCIT reported in 32 SOT 592 and Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 and various other decisions and submitted that since no substantive addition has been made in the hand of any other person, therefore, there cannot be any protective addition in the hands of the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) so far as the addition of Rs.23,56,61,265/- is concerned she sub…

Manoj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3561/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. Dcit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates Central Circle Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Cgo C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi-110025 Complex -1, Hapur Road, Pan No.Aclpj4982H Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…, there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MP Ramchandara Vs. DCIT reported in 32 SOT 592 and Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 and various other decisions and submitted that since no substantive addition has been made in the hand of any other person, therefore, there cannot be any protective addition in the hands of the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) so far as the addition of Rs.23,56,61,265/- is concerned she sub…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

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

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…t, without any prior substantive addition/ assessment, which is erroneous, as has been held in the following decisions: - Lalji Haridas vs. ITO: 43 ITR 387 (SC) - ITO vs. Fussy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 4227 of 2014 (Del) Suresh K. Jajoo vs. ACIT: 39 SOT 514 (Mum) Re (e): No addition - without prejudice " Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that on facts no addition is called for in the year under consideration in view of the following: 11 - Firstly, total alleged purchases billed later aggregates to Rs.46,57,455 and not Rs.77,44,468 assumed by the AO (refer pages 23-25 of the paper b…

Nita Donald Sequeira, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4) Now ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ एच एच” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई एच एच खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“H”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1518/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 वष"…

Ssipl Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5368/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Ssipl Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2) (Sumedha Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi E-51, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ania vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 0291 (SC) - CIT vs. R. Dalmia (1982) 135 ITR 0346 (Del.) - Jyotindra Natwarlal Nak vs. ITO (2013) 21 ITR (Trib.) 0252 (Mum). - DCIT vs. Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd. (2010) 128 TTJ 0001 (Chennai) (TM) - Suresh K. Jajoo vs. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) 10. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. He stated that AO must tax the right person. Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the AO is not precluded from 5 taxing the right person with respect to that income. He further stated that further, the person lawfully…