United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

236 ITR 832High Court1999#1065 most cited

What is United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. At the initiation stage, the formation of a reasonable belief is sufficient, not a conclusive finding of facts.

102

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · escapement of income · reassessment proceedings · formation of reasonable belief

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosuremere change of opinionkelvinatorchange of opinionprincipal officerlive linkincome escaping assessmentsection 144c(1)reason to believeescapement of incomeborrowed satisfactiontangible material

Judgments citing United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Idhasoft Ltd. DCIT-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABCI6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT-15(2)(1), M/s Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3rd Floor 3, Narayan Building,…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. AAACR1789G 2 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO19…

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Anushree V. Khetan, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 4975/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…Therefore objection of the appellant to the reopening of the case and stating the same as bad in law cannot be accepted and cases relied upon by appellant do not hold good. 5.1.7. In the case of Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 148 CTR 62 (Guj.): (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj), it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that "If the AO honestly comes to a conclusion that a mistake has been made, it matters nothing so far as his jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under s. 147 is concerned, that he may have come to an erroneous conclusion whether on law or on facts. His jurisdiction to initiate procee…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the ITA…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…t for assessment (Dr. Amin‟s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon‟ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 for any assessment year. The Hon‟ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…agreed with the decision of this court in Jindal Photo Films’ case [1998] 234 ITR 170, but a doubt ITA No. 1036/Mds/2016. :- 14 -: was sought to be raised by the Revenue in view of a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel’s case [1999] 236 ITR 832 . Therefore, let us now consider the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the said case, wherein it was held (page 839) : “It will thus be seen that in the proceedings taken under section 147, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment or reassessment, or recomputation, as the case may be. The word ‘assess’ refers to a si…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘डी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri. Mithalal D Mutha, Income Tax Officer, 8, Shop No.1, R.K.Building बनाम/ Ward 16(3)(1), Matru No.4, Khetwadi Lane, Mandir Building, Vs. MUMBAI – 400 004. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) PAN. No. AASPM9256A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ishwar P Rathi याजस्व की ओर से / Re…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 920/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147Section 194HSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9

…e instant case. For this view, we stand fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del) and of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel vs. ACIT 236 ITR 832 (Guj). The decisions relied on by the appellant are not found applicable, being based on different footing and ITA No. 920/Del./2017 9 distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo (supra) has observed as under : “The principal that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas ACIT, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next to Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN No.:-AAFCS6295K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri R. Deshpande Sh…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘A’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. CIT-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2nd Floor, Earnest House, M/s. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AADPJ 9583 E ITA Nos.6504 & 6505/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Shree Laxmi Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limini

ITA 3345/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3345/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs M/S. Shree Laxmi Jewellery Pvt. The Acit, Central Circle – 1(3), Ltd., Chennai – 34. No.99, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaacl1289M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.15/Mds/2017 (In Ita No.3345/Mds/2016) Vs The Acit, M/S. Shree Laxmi Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 1(3), No.99, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaacl1289M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: 01.08.2017For Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ng, based on tangible material, to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. In this regard, it is also important to quote some of the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat HC, in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel vs ACIT, 236 ITR 832, while upholding the issue of notice u/s. 148 which is as follows: "the provisions of section 147 require that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has a cause or…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…r assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 709/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. K. N. Chary, JM ITA No. 709/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 4253/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/s Engineering Projects India Circle-11(1), Ltd., Core-3, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACE0061C Assessee by : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. & Sh. Vinay Sethi, CA Revenue by : Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…evelopers vs. AO [2010] 188 TAXMAN 123 (Bom) ix. It is well settled that when the assessee had produced all the material and relevant facts and therefore the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained:. • Praful Chunilal Patel vs. M.J. Makwana, ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj) • JCIT & Ors vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Guj) MJ. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom) • CIT vs. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) Further, it is also well settled audit objection cannot be the basis of issue of notice u/sl48 for reassessment proceedings: Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -12(2), M/s. Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., G-5, IInd Floor, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACG0268R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Bhalla, AR Respondent by Sh. Amril Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.04.2017 Date of pronouncement 09.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 11/02/2013 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi…