251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao

268 ITR 203High Court2004#4831 most cited

What is 251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao authority for?

Concluded assessments can be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year only if there was a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. If this condition is not met, the bar of limitation under the proviso to section 147 operates.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao · 268 ITR 203 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · limitation · four years · failure to disclose · material facts · assessment

Judgments citing 251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5406/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5406/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) D.C.I.T. Cir. 7(1), M/S Sheth Financial बनाम/ Room No. 622, Services P. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As P L M.K. Road, Research & Development Churchgate, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai -400020. Sadhna House, 3 Rd Floor,, 570 P.B. Marg, Behind Mahindra Tower, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcp4312L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 32

…applicable. We have observed that there is no failure on the part of the assessee in making a true and fully disclosure during the course of original assessment proceedings . The assessee has rightly relied on the following decisions:- 1. ICICI Bank v. DCIT, 268 ITR 203(Bom) 2. Ador Technopack Ltd. v. DCIT, 271 ITR 50 (Bom) 3. Supreme Treves P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 323 ITR 323(Bom) 4. Betts India P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 235 Taxmann 77 (Bom) It was also observed that there was no escapement of income due to failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all the material for framing of the original assessment…

Epcos India Private Limited, Nadia vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1921/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 1998-99 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-11, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6950 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…essee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act beyond a period of 4 years was to be quashed being without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. -vS.- DC IT (2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom.) wherein it was held that u/s 147 concluded assessments can be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the 7 8 Epcos India Pvt.Ltd. A.Yr.1998-99 purpose of assessment. Reference was…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cannon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5517/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5517/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2002-03 वष" ACIT, Circle-1(1), Room No.579 M/s. Cannon Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 109, Churchgate Chambers Vs. 5 New Marine Lines,Mumbai…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Unitop Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3511/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(3) Unitop Chemicals P. Ltd. R.No.217, बनाम/ Unitop House C Wing, East Aayakar Bhavan, West Industrial Centre, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Road, Adheri Mumbai -400020 (E) Mumbai 400072 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacu1406F Revenue By Shri Santosh Mankoskar (Dr) Respondent By Shri Haridas Bhat (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Reasons’ about failure of the assessee in disclosure of material facts, reopening shall be invalid. Immediate reference can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 and ICICI Bank Ltd. vs DCIT 268 ITR 203 (Bom). Thus, action of Ld CIT(A) in quashing the reopening is in accordance with law and facts. 3.3. It is further noted by us that in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2007 complete facts were disclosed by the assessee, as would be evident from the perusal of computation of income made in the assessment order at page 4…