Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 vs Ins Finance & Investment P. Ltd on 17 January, 2019

M/S. Venus Township India (P) Ltd, ... vs The Dcit. Central Circle-1(1), ... on 12 November, 2020

94. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. reported in 422 ITR 337 holding that reopening notice on the basis of intimation from DDIT (Investigation) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, was clearly in breach of the settled position of law that reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. The Hon'ble Court has pronounced as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 81 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs Dcit, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad on 4 January, 2022

Thus the reasons were merely recorded on the borrowed satisfaction by the AO. The source for all the conclusions was of the investigation report. The tangible material which formed the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The reasons failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer had not 28 ITA No.3075/Del/2018 Arun Duggal independently considered the tangible material which formed the basis for the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. 94. The Hon'b le High Court of Bombay in the case Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. reported in 422 ITR 337 hold ing that reopening notice on the basis of intimation from DDIT (Investigation) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, was clearly in breach of the settled position of law that reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 103 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai on 26 July, 2022

For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Hon'ble Bombay High court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd 422 ITR 337 where it is held that Where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on basis of intimation from DDIT (Inv.) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, this was clearly in breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Anilbhai Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad vs Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad on 30 November, 2022

13.10 We also note that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd held that reopening of assessment on the basis of intimation received from DDIT (Investigation) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, was clearly in breach of the settled position of law that reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Blue Circle Organics Private Limited, ... vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Incometax, ... on 15 February, 2023

010. The crux of the submission was that i. Reopening of assessment made by the ld AO is without any inquiry independent of information of DDIT Inv Department. Absence of inquiry before recording reasons clearly shows that it is a borrowed satisfaction. Where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on basis of intimation from DDIT (Inv.) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, this was clearly in breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction as held by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd 422 ITR 337. Ad. CIT V DRM Enterprises [2015] 55 taxmann.com 181 (Bombay).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1