281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT

41 ITR 142High Court1961#6383 most cited

What is 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment under section 147(b) is valid if the Income-tax Officer becomes aware of a judicial decision that was not considered during the original assessment, even if the decision existed prior to the original assessment. The discovery of a new legal principle through a court judgment constitutes 'information' for the purpose of initiating reassessment.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

G.R. Ramachari and Co. · 41 ITR 142 · section 147(b) · reassessment · information · discovery of law · change of opinion · tangible material · notice under section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 10(38)Section 114(e)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 114within four yearsfull and true disclosurekelvinatorchange of opiniontangible materialincome-tax officernotice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 11section 148

Judgments citing 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

…Thereafter, the ITO reopened assessment under section 147(6) taking the view that the revaluation difference should have been brought to tax in the assessment year 1961-62 in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in G.R. Ramachari & Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 and completed the reassessment. The assessee's successive appeals to the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal and a reference, at its instance, to the High Court failed. On appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held as under: No doubt, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the ITO at the time of the original assessment, it was…

REETA RANA,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-3, SAHRANPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to take would, in our opinion, be that the Income-tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee's contention that the surplus was not taxable. But, in doing so, he obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in G.R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) which, there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice. When he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under section 147(b). The material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in G.R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad). This material w…

RAJEEV BEHL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 56

…take would, in our 8 opinion, be that the Income-tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee's contention that the surplus was not taxable. But, in doing so, he obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in G.R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) which, there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice. When he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under section 147(b). The material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in G.R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad). This material w…

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…o take would, in our opinion, be that the Income-tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee's contention that the surplus was not taxable. But, in doing so, he obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in G. R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Madras) which there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice. When he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under section 147(b). The material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in G. R. Ramachari and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Madras). This mate…

DCIT-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3147/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to its partners. The question was whether revaluation was chargeable to tax or not? The entire decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered on the pretext that the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Ramachari & Co. vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 142, was not considered by the ld. AO in the case of A.L.A. Firm assessments. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had upheld the validity of reopening u/s.147(b) of the Act on the ground that existing decision was overlooked by the ld. AO. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that when this decision was brought to the notice of the ld. AO, that constituted inf…

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HQ (JUDL) TO CIT-14, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2350/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to its partners. The question was whether revaluation was chargeable to tax or not? The entire decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered on the pretext that the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Ramachari & Co. vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 142, was not considered by the ld. AO in the case of A.L.A. Firm assessments. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had upheld the validity of reopening u/s.147(b) of the Act on the ground that existing decision was overlooked by the ld. AO. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that when this decision was brought to the notice of the ld. AO, that constituted inf…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) ITA. No.4871/Mum/2014 16 Landmark Education Ind…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257…

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257…

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257…

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTELNET GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) 12 ITA No.7428/Mum/2013 & C.O. 99/Mum/2016 M/s Intelnet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT…

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MUIMBAI STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…aras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 IT…

R.P. SUVARNA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (33), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257…

COPERION IDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to

ITA/557/2015HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 260ASection 37

…essee filed its return showing nil income, the Income Tax Officer issued notice on 3rd September 1963 stating that the amount ought to have been brought to tax in AY 1961-62 in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramachari & Co. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 142. Following the reply given by the Assessee, the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147(b). The Assessee objected to reopening of the assessment. It was in the above facts and circumstances, that the Supreme Court held that the material which constituted information and the basis of which the assessment was reopened was th…

COPERION IDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to

ITA-557/2015HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 260ASection 37

…essee filed its return showing nil income, the Income Tax Officer issued notice on 3rd September 1963 stating that the amount ought to have been brought to tax in AY 1961-62 in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramachari & Co. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 142. Following the reply given by the Assessee, the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147(b). The Assessee objected to reopening of the assessment. It was in the above facts and circumstances, that the Supreme Court held that the material which constituted information and the basis of which the assessment was reopened was th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-VI vs. TYAGI ANAND & CO. PVT LTD.

ITA/219/2013HC Delhi11 Oct 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11Section 34Section 9

…read with Order 20 Rule 15 CPC. In support of this proposition he relied upon the decisions in V.C. Venkata Subbaiah Chetty & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 171 ITR 590 (AP); GR Ramachari & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vol.(1961) 41 ITR 142; M.K Rajagopal Chettiar v. Razak Sahib alias Abdur Razack AIR 1950 Madras 759; Popular Automobiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1991) 187 ITR 86 (Ker) and Madhu Rani Mehra v. Commissioner of Income Tax 179 (2011) DLT 783(DB). 34. Mr. Chhabra pressed AS‟s OMP No.219/2013 which sought pendente lite interest on the above amount from the da…

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

ITA - 2026 / 2010HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 260ASection 45(1)

…e-tax Officer had not looked into the facts at all. It is urged that no Income-tax Officer who had looked into the facts and the law could have failed to bring the surplus to tax in view of the then recent pronouncement in G. R. Ramachari's case [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad). Dr. Gauri Shankar submitted that the Tribunal has found that the Income tax Officer "had acted mechanically in accepting the return without bringing his mind to play upon the entry in the statement with reference to the distribution of the assets". He pointed out that there is no evidence of any enquiry with reference to this aspec…

281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT (41 ITR 142) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax