SynfoniaTradelinksPvt. Ltd. v. ITO

435 ITR 642High Court2021#11656 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 132

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessment non-application of mind reopening of assessment section 151 escapement of income reason to believe cross objection genuineness of the transaction reassessment proceedings notice under section 148 section 15 section 68

Judgments citing SynfoniaTradelinksPvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Gdr Finance and Leasing P. Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Gdr Finance & Leasing Vs. Assessment Unit, Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 323, Agrawal Plaza, Nfac. Dda Community Centre, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 110 088. Pan: Aaacg2363D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri Rupinder Aggarwal, Shri R.P. Mall, Shri Uma Shankar, Ms Suman Verma & Ms Vidushi Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…(Bom) v. Mumtaz Hazi Mohmad Memon Vs. ITO 408 ITR 268 (Guj) vi. Pr. CIT v. RMG Ply vinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del) vii. PCIT vs. SNG Developers Limited 404 ITR 312 (Del) 6 viii. Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Del) ix. Synfonia Tradelinks (P). Ltd. vs. ITO 435 ITR 642 (Del) x. Sunrise Education Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) 92 taxmann.com 74 (Guj) 6. Learned authorized representative for the Department submitted that the assessee, in response to notice u/s 148A(b), merely issued a blanket denial of having taken accommodation entries from M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer, in the order pass…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi., Delhi vs. Sandeep Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…. [2024] taxmann.com 652 - Delhi High Court • M/S Raghav Technology (P) Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-20 (4) New Delhi 1064/Del/2019-ITAT Delhi C.O. No.29/Del/2024 Dy.CIT vs. Sandeep Bajaj • Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-22 (4) [2021] 435 ITR 642 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and brought to our notice page- 6 of the PB wherein Ld. JCIT has approved the proceedings u/s 151 of the Act by observing "Yes, I am satisfied" and accordingly to Ld. DR submitted that it clearly shows, Ld. JCIT has applied his mind, therefore, it cannot be said that it…

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…rect facts recorded by the ld. AO. Hence the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act fails on this count also. Our view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Synfonia Tradelinks P Ltd vs ITO reported in 435 ITR 642 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “9.5 Mr. Singh, in a desperate attempt to salvage the situation, drew our attention to the unsecured loans shown in the income tax returns of the assessee for AYs 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012 amounting to Rs. 38,071/- and Rs. 25,57,206/- respectively. Apart from anything else, simple math would show that the cumu…

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

…g authority, which would render the initiation of reassessment proceedings as invalid in the eyes of law. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Synfonia Tradelinks (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward 22(4) (2021) 435 ITR 642 (Delhi). The relevant findings are as under:- “9.9 The provisions of Section 151(1) of the Act required respondent no.2 to satisfy himself as to whether it was a fit case in which sanction should be accorded for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and, thus, triggering the process of reassessment under section 147. The sanction- orde…

ACIT Central Circle-14 Delhi, Delhi vs. Anuj Bansal, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1484/DEL/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 69A

…(HUF), in ITA No.100/JAB/2014, order dated 15.03.2021 xii. Rajat Minerals Pvt. Ltd. in IT(SS)A. No.41 to 47/Ran/2019, order dated 20.01.2020. 10. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SynfoniaTradelinksPvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021)435 ITR 642 (Del) and ESS Advertising (Mauritius) SNC Et Compagnie v. ACIT, reported in (2021) 437 ITR 1(Del.), he submitted that the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Court on validity of approval under section 151 of the Act, which is pari-materia with the provisions of section 153D of the Act, fully cover the issue of validity of impugned approval u/s 1…

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271E

…e truly and correctly all material facts necessary for assessment. Sanction granted by the CIT under sec. 151 simply by noting yes, I am satisfied - It is a fit case to issue notice under sec. 148" is not valid. 7) Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 435 ITR 642 (Del) AND (2021) 322 CTR (Del) 310: Section 151: formation of belief by AO that income of the assess00 chargeable to tax had escaped assessment was unreasonable and irrational as it could not be related to underlining information received from Investigation Wing. Further sanction order passed by respondent No. 2 under section 151 simply contains…

Anuj Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1016/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 68

…sufficient. The written satisfaction has to be recorded by the Addl. CIT showing the application of mind to the proposal of the Assessing Officer. He has in this respect also relied upon the following decisions: (i) Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021)435 ITR 642 [Del-HC] (ii) PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11 (Del-HC) (iii) CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 [SC] (iv) CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 [MP-HC] (v) United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del-HC) (vi) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha &Ors. 79 ITR 603 (…

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

…ore, it is clear that necessary sanction for issuance of notice under section 148, as required under section 151 had been obtained.” 45. The identical issue was also challenged before the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Synfonia Trade links Pvt Ltd in 435 ITR 642 (Del) wherein the honourable High Court after considering the decision of the Experion Developers has held as Under:- “10.4. The reliance placed by Mr. Singh on paragraphs 40 to 43 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2020] 422 ITR 355 (Delhi) in support of his submissions that the orde…