“reasons recorded”

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jubilant Food Works Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddya.Y. : 2004-05 Dcit, Circle 4(1), M/S Jubilant Food Cr Building, Vs. Works Ltd., New Delhi (Formerly Known As Domino’S Pizza India Ltd) B214, Phase-2, Noida (Pan: Aabcd1821C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

asking the assessee furnish its return of income and the same was submitted by the assessee under protest on 14.2.2011. Thereafter, 3 copy of reasons recorded by the AO for the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was provided to the assessee. The assessee vide submissions dated ... filed its objection against the reasons recorded, which were rejected vide order dated 3.6.2011. Thereafter, the AO passed the order under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 17.10.2011, making a total adjustment of Rs. 1,96,17,997/- and assessing the income of the assessee

Sh. Ashok Ambwani, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Pradeep Kumar Gupta – 303 ITR 95, held that on the basis of those facts, reassessment was legally unsustainable. He furnished the copy of reasons recorded in the case of Jiten Gurnani and compared the same with the reasons recorded in the case of the assessee and pointed out that identical ... information. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. On a perusal of the reasons recorded in the case of the assessee as well as Jiten Gurnani, we find that identical reasons were recorded for reopening of assessment in both

Sh. Shyam Lal Shagar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, we allow ground nos 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishishyam Lal Shagar, Ito, A-19, Overseas Apartments, Ward-39(4), Vs. Plot No.22, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aayps0353G (Appellant) (Respondent)

grounds, same are dealt with as under:- “1. Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming Asstt. u/s 147 whreas (i) Reasons recorded were not confronted to appellant (ii) Notice u/s 143(2) was not issued before completing assessment. 2. Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming alleged ... Rs.8,65,000/- is misconceived and opposed to Facts law and circumstances of the case.” 6. Before us, the ld AR submitted that reasons recorded were not provided to the assessee. He further argued that notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued after filing

M/S Pankaj Gas Cylinders Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Pankaj Gas Cylinders Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 14(1), 138, Ugf, World Trade Centre, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan : Aaacp0419M)

inference; non application of mind much less 5 ITA No.5273/Del./2013 independent application of mind; total lack of clarity on nature of transaction in reasons recorded. He further submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the Hon’ble High Court Decision dated 8.10.2015 passed in ITA No. 545/2015 ... case law cited by the assessee’s counsel on the issue in dispute. In our view, it is very much necessary to reproduce the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of Notice to the Assessee u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is reproduced hereunder:- 6 ITA No.5273/Del

Prominent Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Prominent Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Now Known As Brv Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward 14(4), C-52, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi-110095 (Pan: Aadcp3196J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Ved Jain,Ca & Ashish Chadha Respondent By: Shri O.P. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

held that non-service of notice was not an issue at all. The assessee also challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded did not warrant reassessment. The assessee’s ground of appeal on the issue of validity of the reassessment proceedings based on reasons recorded

G.G. Metal Udyog, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts ... passed in the case Unique MetaI Industries vs. ITO in ITA No. 1372/Del/2015. In our view, it will be relevant to refer to the reasons recorded by the AO and the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax which reads as under:- “Reasons for the belief that the income

M/S. Vasundra Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H.S.Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 4014/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

conclusion reached by the ITAT cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises.” 7. Now, we have to examine the reasons recorded in the present case before us in view of the ratios laid down in the above cited decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High ... income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the basis of information received by it, the Assessing Officer has not applied her mind. The reasons recorded in the present case by the Assessing Officer for the purpose are being reproduced hereunder: “2. As per the information received from the ACIT

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Care Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s Cross Objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2004-05

notice under s. 148 shall not be issued unless the Chief CIT or the CIT, as the case may be, is. satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the AO code med, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. These are some inbuilt safeguards to prevent

M/S R.T. Paper Board Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 R.T. Paper Board Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 15(1) 407-408, Deepali New Delhi Nehru Place New Delhi 110 019 Pan: Aabcr 9393 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy

careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, orders of lower authorities and case laws cited, we hold as follows. 4. The reasons recorded for reopening are at page no.3 of the paper book. These read as follows. “Reasons: As per the 3 CD Report, the assessee ... original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). There is no allegation in the reasons recorded that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in its return of income. In the absence

M/S. Shanker Gas & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Amalgamated Company), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Shanker Gas & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. Ltd., (Amalgamated Company) For 15(4), New Delhi. M/S. Roopin Capital Pvt. Ltd., (Amalgamating Company), 62, G- 11, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacr4397N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. D. Ostwal & Rishbh Ostwal, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17Th May, 2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A)- Xviii, New Deihi Has Erred Both On Facts & ;N Law, In Upholding The Illegal Order Passed By The Respondent Without Jurisdiction, Violative Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Fair & Objective Mind To Facts Of The Case & The Law Applicable & Hence Liable To Be Set Aside & Quashed & Declared Non-Est In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A)- Xviii, New Delhi Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law, In Upholding The Illegal Action Of Re-Assessment & Assumption Of Jurisdiction Illegally By The Respondent That Too Without Issue/ Served Notice U/S 148 & Without Following The Statutory Requirements Of Section 147 To 153 Of The Income Tax Act, Therefore The Entire Proceedings Of Reassessment Is Void Ab Initio, Illegal & Unauthorized By Law.

following the binding decisions of Courts and Tribunals relied upon by the appellant for the fact that nothing was added out of reasons recorded and impugned orders cannot, therefore, be sustained both on facts and in law. 9. Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in upholding the illegal additions ... received by the 4 AY: 2004-05 assessee and therefore the proceedings are invalid and void-ab-initio. Further, the learned AR submitted that reasons recorded were containing duplicate entries and therefore Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while recording reasons. In support of the proposition, the learned

Manu Credit India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 2242/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2003-04) Manu Credit India Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-6 (2) 278, Katra Peran New Delhi Tilak Bazar (Respondent) New Delhi Aaacm6920A (Appellant)

Assessing Officer had taken pro-active steps to check the genuineness of the transactions. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no independent reasons recorded, as the Assessing Officer provided the reasons citing the information provided by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi and re-opened ... receipt of certain information received from DIT (Inv.) which are available at page 16 of assessee’s paper book. After going through the said reasons recorded it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 147/148 of the Act solely on the basis of information received from

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Aggrieved assessee took up the issue with the Tribunal. The Hon‘ble Tribunal, after due consideration of the issue in depth and for the reasons recorded therein, directed the AO/TPO to determine the arm‘s length interest at Libor plus 2% on the monthly closing balance of advances during

Bestseller United India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

computed by the TPO on the ground that since cost based includes FOB value, the margin must increase in view of the detailed reasons recorded and directed the TPO to recompute the ALP. For ready reference, findings returned by the ld. DRP are reproduced as under :- “4.2 Grounds