(1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT v. Elgi Finance

258 ITR 533High Court2002#7358 most cited

What is (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT v. Elgi Finance authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on the same set of facts that were available during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot use Section 147 to reopen assessments when the primary facts were already before them.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mercury Travels Ltd vs Dy CIT · 258 ITR 533 · section 147 · reassessment · change of opinion · invalid reassessment · primary facts · Assessing Officer

Judgments citing (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT v. Elgi Finance

Shanker Lal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3808/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

Section 147

…, bad in law. The legal proposition in this regard is well-settled by a long line of judicial precedents viz: CIT V/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 566) (SC) (b) Hindustan Lever Limited V/s. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited. Vis. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533) (Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors. V/s ITO (313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. V/s. DDIT(E) (361 ITR 160) (Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) (j) Pr…

Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir. 1, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 398/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd............................................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 1001 E] Vs. ACIT, Cir.-1, Burdwan...........................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: P.J. Bhide, AR. Department represented by: P.P.…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ica Eduskill Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2147/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35D

…ere appears to be a case of mere change of opinion. In such cases, reopening proceedings are not valid. The principles enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji’s case 102 ITR 287 cannot save the impugned action of the A.O". In the case of Mercury Travels Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 258 ITR 533 (Cal.), it was held as follows - “that where the primary facts were before the A.O. when he made assessments under sub-section (3) of section 143 and it was not open to him to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the said Act to reopen the assessments because he might have omitted to notice certain facia by overnight, For change of opinion, th…

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 380 & 381/Rpr/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बनाम/ Dy.C.I.T. Secl Circle 1(1) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Vs. Mahima Commercial (Cg) Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (Cg) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2066E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, Shri Vivek RuiaFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 147

…uently, assessment order is bad in law. We draw support for this proposition from the following decisions: (a) CIT V/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 566)(SC) (b) Hindustan Lever Limited V/s. R.B.Wadkar (268 ITR 332)(Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited . V/s. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533)(Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors .V/s ITO(313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.V/s. DDIT(E)(361 ITR 160)(Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) 7.2 We sim…

Dy.C.I.T. Cir 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. M/S Secl, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 380 & 381/Rpr/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बनाम/ Dy.C.I.T. Secl Circle 1(1) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Vs. Mahima Commercial (Cg) Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (Cg) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2066E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, Shri Vivek RuiaFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 147

…uently, assessment order is bad in law. We draw support for this proposition from the following decisions: (a) CIT V/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 566)(SC) (b) Hindustan Lever Limited V/s. R.B.Wadkar (268 ITR 332)(Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited . V/s. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533)(Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors .V/s ITO(313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.V/s. DDIT(E)(361 ITR 160)(Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) 7.2 We sim…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…ITR 567(SC) 2. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) 3. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, 220 ITR 194 (Gujrat) document1 4. Jindal Photofilms Ltd. 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 5. Berger Paints India Ltd. 245 ITR 645(Cal) and Mercury Travels Ltd, 258 ITR 533(Cal) 6. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. Voltas Limited. 349 ITR 656 (Bom) 8. Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd, 314 ITR 236(Guj) 9. Jal Hotels Co. Ltd, 184 Taxman 1 (Del) 10. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd, 296 ITR 342(Del) 11. Goetze Ltd. 321 ITR 431 (Del) 12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prud…

Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 668/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ere change of opinion on the same set of facts. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. In support of this, he relied on the following plethora of case laws. 01. CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of…

Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ere change of opinion on the same set of facts. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. In support of this, he relied on the following plethora of case laws. 01. CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk Mills vs DCIT (1996) 222 ITR 68 (Guj.) 8) Mercury Travels DCIT (2002) 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 9)JCIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) 33 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. 10) CIT vs Sambhar Salt ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 675 (Raj.) We find that there was no new tangible material with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, thus, in view of the…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Cir - 5, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Akash MansingkaFor Respondent: Shri Angan Shaiza, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…luding the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases: (i) CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), (ii) Coca-Cola Export Corporation Vs. ITO (1990) 231 ITR 200 (SC), (iii) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), (iv) Mercury Travels Ltd. Vs. DCIT 258 ITR 533 (Cal) and (v) Ballarpur Paper & Straw Board Mills Ltd. 101 ITR 55 (Cal). 10. Here, in this case, the order of the AO itself reads that it was apparent that while computing the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act the total interest expenses was not considered by mistake. It goes without saying that the mistake is not attributable to the conduct of t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…4, 529/06, 222/09, :- 16 -: 782/05 & 177/09. information required for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgments:- (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCI…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporationlimited, Neyveli vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…4, 529/06, 222/09, :- 16 -: 782/05 & 177/09. information required for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgments:- (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCI…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…4, 529/06, 222/09, :- 16 -: 782/05 & 177/09. information required for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgments:- (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCI…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli vs. ITO, Cuddalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…4, 529/06, 222/09, :- 16 -: 782/05 & 177/09. information required for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgments:- (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCI…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…4, 529/06, 222/09, :- 16 -: 782/05 & 177/09. information required for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgments:- (1) CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCI…