How many judgments cite United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

102 judgments on BharatTax cite United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (236 ITR 832), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 131, Section 142(1), Section 144B.

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 147 Section 148 Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 14A Section 250

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosure mere change of opinion kelvinator change of opinion principal officer live link income escaping assessment section 144c(1)reason to believe escapement of income borrowed satisfaction tangible material

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

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ke…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2650/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147

…case. For this view, support has rightly been taken from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo And Finvest Ltd. vs. ACIT, 28 ITR 394 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 assessee are not found applicable, being based on different footing and distinguishable on the facts of the ITA Nos. 2650, 2652 & 2653/Del./2012 and CO. No. 278/Del./2012 11 present case. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo (supra) has observed as under : "The principle that a…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…cise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution, examine the sufficiency of the reason which led the Assessing Officer to believe that the income had escaped assessment as held in the case of Shri Praful Chunilal Patel v. M. J. Makwana [1999] 236 ITR 832(Guj). 10. We further fortify our view by placing reliance on the decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Amin`s Pathology Laboratory v. P.N. Prasad , JCIT [2001] 252 ITR 673 (Bom)/ [2001] 172 CGTR 696 (Bom) it was observed in para that Hon`ble High Court observed as follows: “However, in the present case, the period of four ye…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

…Disha N. Lalwani (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 Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent…

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Divyesh Shah & Amit ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…ful debts, that the AO had simply accepted the income as per revised return under normal provisions as well as u/s.115 JB, that the AO had dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee about reopening. He referred to the cases of Praful Chunilal Patel (236 ITR 832) Raymond Woollen Mills (236 ITR 34) and Phool Chand (203 ITR 456) and upheld the reopening. About the audit objection, he observed that, in the regions recorded by the AO there is no mention of any such objection, that the disputed amount was covered by clause (c) of explanation to section 115 JB of the Act, that it was not a case of change of op…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…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 for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Property Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2081/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 03.11.2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…to adjudicate on this. 7. The CIT (A) ought to have followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Kelvinator of India Ltd., 328 ITR 561 (SC). 8. The decisions relied on by the CIT (A), Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. 9. Makwana/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 236 ITR 832 (GUJ) and Venus Industrial Corporation VS Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 236 ITR 742.(P&H) are not applicable to the facts of the case. 10. Ground No. 2.5 and 2.6 of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant ought to be dismissed in limine. :-3-: 11. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing it is prayed tha…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…(para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ke…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…(SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) 9 M/s Mumbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O. No.39/Mum/2016 New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ke…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…suing notice under section 148 of the Act, sufficiency of reasons was not to be examined. She also relied on the judgment in the case of S. Narayan Appa, reported in 63 ITR 219. Further, relying on the judgment in the case of the Parfful Chunnilal reported in 236 ITR 832 submitted that no court can sit on the judgment of the AO of sufficiency of reason to believe. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative also C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of AGR Investment, reported in 333 ITR 146 and submitted that information received from the Investigat…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…ra 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 21…

Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.N. Maurya, IRS, CIT

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 619(3)(b)

…s High Courts decisions i.e. (i) High Court of Mumbai in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 30 taxman. Com 211 (2013) (ii) Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel and Vasanth Chunilal Patel vs. ACIT 236 ITR 832 (iii) High Court of Delhi in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT 197 taxman 415 (iv) High Court of Bombay in the case of Yuvaraj vs. Union of India (Bom) 315 ITR 84 and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Chennai Petroleum Corp. Ltd in ITA No.66/11-12/LTU(A), dated 08.01.2013 and the objections of the assessee and passed…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…mar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) 9 Mr. R.P. Suvarna Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ke…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Saryubala H Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3905/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay R Parikh

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54ESection 68

…the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Raymond Woolen Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 236 and in the case of Gujarat High Court decision in the case of 7 Hasmukh J Shah CO No. 132/Mum/2013 Mrs. Saryubala H Shah CO No. 133/Mum/2013 Chunnilal Patel, reported in 236 ITR 832. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even during the course of search in the case of Mukesh Chokshi Group, there is no specific mention about the assessee that the transaction undertaken by the assessee with M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt Ltd is sham or accommodation entry. It was a general finding/observation that these companies were also engaged in p…

ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Hasumukh J Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3904/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay R Parikh

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54ESection 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6145/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., Ward 11(4), New Delhi 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 134/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 6145/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, Ward-11(4), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Sh. G.N. Gupta Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Dated 30.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2004-05. Cross Objections Have Also Been Filed By The Assessee In The Present Appeal. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases of Sowdagar Ahmed Khan Vs. ITO, (1968) 70 ITR79 (SC); Brij Mohan Aggarwal Vs. ACIT, 268 ITR 400 (All.); & Praful Chunila Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel Vs. Asstt. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj.). 7. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee company are dismissed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 6th November, 2015. (DIVA SINGH) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 6th November, 2015. RK/-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/1232/2009HC Delhi18 Oct 2012

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ed that even when full disclosure has been made, income can still be held to have escaped assessment. In this regard, he relied on Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT, 253 ITR 83 and Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj). 2012:DHC:6521-DB W.P.(C) 759/2013 Page 4 Counsel further submitted that the Proforma for obtaining the approval of CIT under Section 151 for issuance of notice under Section 148 does not, at any place, use…

CIT vs. Usha International Ltd

ITA - 2026 / 2010HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 260ASection 45(1)

…(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB)(Del). In the said case, which relates to the assessment year 1987-88, the amended Section 147 with effect 1st April, 1989 was examined. Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel vs. Makwana (M.J.)/Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) was referred and dissented. It was held as under:- “We are, with respect, unable to subscribe to the aforementioned view. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted the same, in our opinion, would confer an arbitrary power upon the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer who had passed the order of assessment or even his successo…