What is United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on general or vague information lacking a specific link to the assessee's transaction, and requires the Assessing Officer to apply an independent mind and form a 'reason to believe' based on reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion.

How many judgments cite United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT?

309 judgments on BharatTax cite United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (258 ITR 317), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 151, Section 153A, Section 153D.

United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (258 ITR 317)

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); VI. Assumption of jurisdiction based on invalid issue of notice u/s 148: From perusal of notice u/s 148 (PB 14), it can be seen that notice u/s 148 has been issued in the name of the artificial juridical entity without addressing the name of incumbent compliant. Therefor…

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); VI. Assumption of jurisdiction based on invalid issue of notice u/s 148: From perusal of notice u/s 148 (PB 14), it can be seen that notice u/s 148 has been issued in the name of the artificial juridical entity without addressing the name of incumbent compliant. Therefor…

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/16692/2022HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 281BSection 281ESection 92C

…- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16692 OF 2022(T-IT) BETWEEN: XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORCHID (BLOCK E) GROUND FLOOR TO 4th FLOOR, EMBASSY TECH VILLAGE, MARATHALL, SARJAPURA OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU 560 103 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. SAMEER B.S.RAO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA…

Success International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 51(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7301/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasuccess International, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), Ca L-7A, )Lgf), South Extn, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxfs3915K

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Success International, Vs. ITO, C/o. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), CA L-7A, )LGF), South Extn, New Delhi Part-II, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAXFS3915K Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA Revenue by: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 16/11/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.08.2019 of Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi (hereinaft…

Radha Mittal, Ludhiana vs. ITO- Ward 7(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in light

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavradha Mittal, Ito बनाम H. No. 85-A, Aggar Nagar, Ward- 7(3), Ludhiana- 141012 Ludhiana

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Radha Mittal, ITO बनाम H. No. 85-A, Aggar Nagar, Ward- 7(3), Ludhiana- 141012 Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADGPR 5761 E "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sarabjit Garg, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 17.10.2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022 आदेश/ORDER Per Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by t…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ITA No.299/Bang/2019 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah N C Colony Near State Bank of Hyderabad ACIT Circle-1 Vs. Hospete 583 201 Bellary PAN NO : AAWPV6572E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narayana K.R., D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed aga…

M/S. Kedar Cotton Industries, Mehsana vs. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 531/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Kedar Cotton Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Survey No.50/1, Vs Income-Tax, At. Post Budasan, Mehsana Circle, Tal. Kadi, Mehsana Mehsana Pan : Aadfk 2494 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.02.2019. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Ginning & Pressing Of Cotton. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 23.09.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,14,300/-. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & In The Assessment Originally Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2013, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.3,84,53,522/- After Making An Addition Of Rs.3,79,39,222/-. Against The Said Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Learned Cit(A) Who Allowed The Said Kedar Cotton Industries Vs. Dcit Ay : 2010-11 2

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ex Court vide order dated 08.07.2015 in SLP No.11916 of 2015, [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT, reported in 258 ITR 317 (Delhi HC) in support of assessee’s claim on this issue. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer, along with the proposal submitted to the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax for approval, had enclosed the reasons recorded by him for reopening the assessment on the basis of which notice under Section 1…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 1219/Bang/2016 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Circle – 4(1)(1), #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R 1563/Bang/2014 -do- -do- 2007-08 1601/Bang/2014 M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., CIT(A)-1, 2007-08 #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena,…

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 1219/Bang/2016 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Circle – 4(1)(1), #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R 1563/Bang/2014 -do- -do- 2007-08 1601/Bang/2014 M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., CIT(A)-1, 2007-08 #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena,…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 1219/Bang/2016 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Circle – 4(1)(1), #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R 1563/Bang/2014 -do- -do- 2007-08 1601/Bang/2014 M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., CIT(A)-1, 2007-08 #54, Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AABCJ 5666 R Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena,…

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

…(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 (SC) 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, had submitted that the aforesaid legal ground has been taken by the assessee for the first time and the same should not be admitted for adjudication. He has further submitted that since the assessee had failed to supply relevant information d…