222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India v. ACIT & Ors.

411 ITR 664High Court2019#14231 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 143(3)india document interest

Judgments citing 222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India v. ACIT & Ors.

VIRAMGAM MAHESANA PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 119/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarviramgam Mahesana Project Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), E – 9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Ndse Part 2, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan :Aabcv7027L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 14.08.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. Thisappeal Is Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 22.10.2014For Assessment Year 2006-07 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings, U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act & Also Failed To Appreciate That Neither The Mandatory Requirements Of Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Nor The Pre-Conditions For Invoking The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…). After the AO himself admitting in writing that during the subject year the assessee was owner of the railway track the re-opening of the assessment on that very excuse is hit by a change of opinion in ways more than one. 4 In State Bank of India vs. ACIT (411 ITR 664), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that it can and should be assumed that while framing an assessment, the Assessing Officer has examined and applied his mind to the basic documents as required for the framing of an assessment (Para 6 of the said judgement). In the subject case the assessee's audited accounts themselves made clear and sp…

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…[2010] 128 TTJ 107 (Delhi) 8. P.C. Puri vs CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 158 (Del) 9. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All.) 10. CIT vs Nirmal Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. [2009] 222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India vs ACIT & Ors [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom.) 12. Subrata Banik vs CIT, Central-III (2013) 144 ITD 676 (Kol. Trib) 13. Kannur Distt. Co-op Bank Ltd vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CIT vs Industrial Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 1014 9 AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD . JAIPUR VS PCIT -1 , JAIPUR 15. Director of Income Tax (International Taxati…

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…the assessment order.” [Para 21 & 22] Rayon Silk Mills Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. (1996) 221 ITR 155 [09.11.1995] The judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of State Bank of India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and Ors. [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom) [15.06.2018] wherein it was held that: M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited “Moreover, the Assessment order in regular assessment proceedings in terms disallowed some of the claims made for deduction under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in the present facts, we are prima-facie of the view that, the Assessing O…

NISARG ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…). CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC)] (ii). CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [(2011) 333 ITR 547 (Delhi HC)] (iii). CIT v. v. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd [(2009) 309 ITR 67 (Gujarat HC)] (iv). State Bank of India v. ACIT (2018) (411 ITR 664)(Bom HC) 17. With regard to Ground No. 2 which is in respect of disallowance of remuneration/salary and interest paid to partners (Partnership firms), Ld. AR submitted that Partnership firm can be a partner in other partnership firm, and relied on the following case laws (i). Chhotalal Devchand v. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 351)(Bom) (ii). (Dulichand Lax…

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…judicial precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. (2009) 222 CTR 593 (Guj) [04.02.2008], Rayon Silk Mills Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. (1996) State Bank of India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and Ors. [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom) [15.06.2018] 36 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT 63. In view of the above, Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against the Appellant on factually and legally inconsistent findings and allegations. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, COUNTER SUBMISSION ON THE FINDINGS AND ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PCIT ARE…

TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

ITA 6357/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram/Rahul Hakani (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh / Mohd. Rizwan

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)

…the Act after changing his opinion. The Ld. counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (2019) 411 ITR 664, submitted that since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court in the aforesaid cases, the same is liable to be set aside. Assessment Year: 2009-10 6. The Ld. counsel invited our attention to page 31 and 32 of the paper book, which are the copies of notice dated 18.08.2…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT SMARTSERVE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 5173/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…thing but a change of opinion on the same facts and circumstances which were already in his knowledge even during the original assessment proceedings.” 2.28 To the similar effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of State Bank of India v. ACIT: 411 ITR 664 wherein, reassessment notice issued on claims accepted by the assessing officer at the time of original assessment proceedings, was held to be change in opinion, in the absence of any new facts/ or law with the assessing officer.” 39. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India 411 ITR 664 wherein r…