349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

439 ITR 284High Court2021#20862 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

ITA 3949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147

…sesa Goa Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 101 and Ananta landmark private limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax in Bajaj Auto Ltd; A.Y. 2010-11 writ petition number 2814 of 2019 dated 14 September 2021. The decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) dated 30/9/2021 was also relied upon. vii. The learned authorized representative also referred to the factual paper book containing 147 pages and a case law compilation where 6 case laws were listed down. 024. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that impugned assessment year is 2010 – 11 and the reopening has b…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…which he relied upon following decisions: (i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is based upon borrowed satisfaction and reopening for examining another aspect/facet of same issue/claim already examined d…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 427/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…have expressed the above said views following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which were relied upon by Ld A.R before us. The first one is the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpataru Limited vs. DCIT (2021)(439 ITR 284)(Bom). Following discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above said case are relevant to the facts of the present case:- “11. It is settled law that where the assessment is sought to be reopened after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant year, the 11 Sai Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. proviso to Section 147…