Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)
Narmada Concast Private Limited, ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 January, 2024
cites
M/S. K.L. Concast Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 3 April, 2018
(WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 03/01/2024
I.T.A No. 33/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 17
Narmada Concast Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
अहमदाबाद
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 127 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs Income Tax Officer & on 6 October, 2015
7.5. Further the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Varshaben
Sanatbhai Patgel vs ITO reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 179
held that in the absence of any details available on record,
Assessing Officer could not initiate assessment proceedings merely
I.T.A No. 33/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 15
Narmada Concast Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
on the basis of information supplied by DGIT (Inv.) that assessee
had made certain bogus purchases and, to said extent, income had
escaped assessment observing as follows:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Pavan Kishanchand Tulsiani vs Union Of India on 2 January, 2023
8. Ld. Sr. D.R. relied upon Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in
the case of Pavan Kishanchand Tulsiani vs Union of India reported
in (2023) 146 taxmann.com 396 wherein admittedly the MoU as
well as Sauda-Chitthi seized by the department, wherein
unaccounted cash has been paid for purchase of two lands.
Considering the facts of the above case, the Hon'ble High Court
upheld the reopening of assessment is good in law, whereas in the
present case the Assessing Officer has not formulated his own
opinion and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment,
but simply followed the DGIT information and reopened the
assessment which is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the
present case.