Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 264 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd on 27 April, 2010

M/S. Surbhi Minchem Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur vs Assessee on 9 May, 2014

From the above provisions, it is clear that for taking action u/s 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer must satisfy himself regarding the escapement of income. He should not act mechanically or on the information supplied by any other person. In the present case, the Assessing Officer acted on the information supplied by the Directorate of the Income Tax (Inv.), Udaipur and Mumbai but he has not applied his independent mind and the reassessment proceedings were initiated only on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department. In the present case, the satisfaction regarding the escapement of income, was not of the Assessing Officer, therefore, without applying his mind, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. On the similar issue, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.) held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.W Promotions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 20 December, 2012

The reasons as recorded by AO before re-opening of the assessment have been reproduced in para-2 earlier. We find that reasons conveyed by the AO were the same as recorded by him in the file except the last line which related to formation of belief which had not been given. The assessee had asked for reasons for re-opening of the assessment and the 10 ITA No.3969/M/12 A.Y. 07-08 AO had given reasons as recorded by him without any change and, therefore, it can not be said that the AO had given the gist of reasons recorded. The ld. AR has placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata International Ltd. (supra). We have gone through the said order of the Tribunal. It is clear from the said decision that in that case, the undisputed fact was that the reasons actually recorded by AO had not been furnished to the assessee despite repeated requests. Later on, the gist of reasons had been furnished which did not meet the requirement of law. Thus, in that case, the reasons as recorded by the AO were not furnished and it is under these circumstances that the re- assessment had been set aside. The case is obviously distinguishable and not relevant to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahavir Moulds India Private Limited, ... vs Income-Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur, ... on 12 July, 2024

21. We, therefore, in terms of aforesaid observations respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in the case of Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain vs. ITO, wherein various judgments comprises of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat (SC), Chetan Rajnikant Shah Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mumbai), PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC), PCIT Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del), PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del), CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del), on the issue of borrowed satisfaction and mechanical application of mind without independent inquiry have been exhaustively deliberated upon. Applying the ratio emerging from the aforesaid case laws, to the facts in the present case, admittedly, in the instant case the Assessing Officer had formed a reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to 49 ITA No. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89/RPR/2024 Mahavir Moulds India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahavir Moulds India Private Limited, ... vs Income-Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur, ... on 12 July, 2024

21. We, therefore, in terms of aforesaid observations respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in the case of Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain vs. ITO, wherein various judgments comprises of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat (SC), Chetan Rajnikant Shah Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mumbai), PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC), PCIT Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del), PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del), CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del), on the issue of borrowed satisfaction and mechanical application of mind without independent inquiry have been exhaustively deliberated upon. Applying the ratio emerging from the aforesaid case laws, to the facts in the present case, admittedly, in the instant case the Assessing Officer had formed a reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to 49 ITA No. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89/RPR/2024 Mahavir Moulds India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nigam Computers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 18(2), New Delhi on 16 January, 2020

It is apparent from the fact that according to the AO, Investigation Wing has informed that assessee company has received accommodation entry of Rs. 10 lacs in the garb of share application money which is said to be as per inquiry made by the Directorate of Investigation (DI) on the persons said to be involved providing accommodation entries/ bogus share application. Based on inquiries made, DI is said to have provided details of persons who are beneficiaries of such accommodation entries and one such beneficiary is said to be the assessee. In this case notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued merely on the basis of information from D.I. that the assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs.10 laks. There is no mention of any application of mind or any independent inquiry or any link between any tangible material and formation of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is also noted that in the reasons recorded, the AO has made vague remarks that assessee has income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. The AO has not even specified as to what is the amount of alleged income escaping assessment, which shows that AO has merely recorded certain unsubstantiated allegations on the basis of some information received, which is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), wherein it was observed that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from investigation wing regarding alleged accommodation entries and it has been held by jurisdictional Delhi High Court that mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that A.O. had independently 12 applied his mind to arrive at a belief that the income had escaped assessment. Thus, the AO has acted mechanically and without any independent application of mind. The reasons recorded are therefore vague, highly non specific and reflect complete non-application of mind. It is also noted that there is no live link or direct nexus between alleged material and, inference. It is further noted that initiation of proceedings is also based on non application of mind much less independent application of mind but is a case of borrowed satisfaction. Nothing is independently examined or considered by the AO which can demonstrate non-application of mind by him. There is nothing to show that the cash is paid from coffers of the assessee. Reasons do no indicate as to who AO reached to the conclusion that the assessee received accommodation entry and escaped assessment. To support my aforesaid view, I draw support from the following decisions:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 29 October, 2015

10. Under the circumstances and respectfully applying the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi), we agree with the learned counsel of the assessee that the reopening in this case is bad in law. Accordingly, we hold the reassessment as invalid for both the years under appeal. Since we have held that the reassessment is invalid, we are not adjudicating on the other as the same have become in fructuous.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next