TR (St.) 24. CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd: 354 ITR 536 (Del.) Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

250 CTR 15High Court2012#23973 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 112(1)Section 115AD Section 115JAA

Judgments citing TR (St.) 24. CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd: 354 ITR 536 (Del.) Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…introducing new/detailed/supplementary reasons to believe. This is the bare minimum mandatory requirement for the first part of Section 147(1) of the Act. ITO vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd. h) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indivest PTE Ltd. vs. ADIT (2012) 250 CTR 15 (Bom.) held that the AO attempted to improve upon the reasons which were originally communicated to the assessee. It was held that those reasons cannot be supplemented or improved upon subsequently as those reasons constitute the foundation of action initiated by the AO for reopening of assessment. It was held that the succeeding AO has clearly at…

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…a Bhatta Co 321 ITR 526 (Del) - SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court and is reported in 320 ITR (St.) 24. CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd: 354 ITR 536 (Del.) Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: 329 ITR 110 (Del.) Indivest Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT: 250 CTR 15 (Bom) Nitin P. Shah vs. DCIT 146 Taxman 536 (Guj.). CIT vs. Manohar Lal Gupta 213 CTR 93 (Raj.) 28. Now as with regard to grounds of appeal nos.4 to 8, which are also to great extent covered in the second issue, as framed above, to find out if addition under section 28(iv) is sustainable, it can be seen that in the reassessment order, addition o…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…asons and proposed to taxed the entire transaction in A Y 2008-09, without realizing the fact that partially he has already taxed it in A Y 2007- 08. 10. Reliance was placed by learned AR on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indivest Pvt. Ltd., 250 CTR 15/206 Taxman 351 and 6 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., Prashan S.Joshi 324 ITR 154, wherein it was held that only reasons recorded by Assessing Officer must be considered. 11. Learned AR also relies upon the following decisions for the above proposition:-  Hindustan Lever Ltd., v R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election AIR 19…