35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co.

82 ITR 831Supreme Court of India1971#2659 most cited

What is 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. authority for?

Reassessment under Section 147 is not permissible solely on a mere change of opinion or a reconsideration of the same material. The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment if the initial grounds for believing income has escaped assessment are subsequently found to be incorrect or non-existent.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Raman and Co. · 82 ITR 831 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · mere change of opinion · jurisdiction to reassess · grounds incorrect · escaped assessment · Bankipur Club Ltd. · Kelvinator · no new material

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 10(38)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 34(1)section 148(2)section 148(1)first proviso to section 147beyond four yearskelvinatormere change of opinionsection 34mlisource of sourceborrowed satisfaction

Judgments citing 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co.

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM DCIT-6(2)(1) M/s. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan RPG House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 PAN/GIR No. AAACC1645G (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/s. Ceat Ltd. ACIT, Range-6(2)(1) RPG House, 463 Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Vs. M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACC1645G (Assessee) : (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal Date of Hearing : 13.0…

State Bank of India vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order dated 24

ITA/569/2017HC Karnataka15 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17Section 260Section 260ASection 32

…idered. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.', (2002) 123 TAXMAN 433 (DELHI), 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.', (2010) 187 TAXMAN 312 (SC), 'BANKIPUR CLUB LTD VS. CIT', (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC), 'CIT VS. NCR CORPORATION (P.) LTD' supra, and ACIT VS. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD, (1978) 113 ITR 389. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessment proceedings have been re-opened in accordance with law and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. It is also urged that burden was on the assessee…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…onsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Cit [ 1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [ 1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [ 1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied). The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A.L.A. Firm v…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…onsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Cit [ 1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [ 1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [ 1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied). The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A.L.A. Firm v…

Preeti Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 254(2)

…and the moment such is the position, the Income-tax Officer does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Ganeshilal Lal Chand [1985] 154 ITR 274. On behalf of the Revenue, CIT v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 159, a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in view of the aforesai…

Nirmal Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 171/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 254(2)

…and the moment such is the position, the Income-tax Officer does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Ganeshilal Lal Chand [1985] 154 ITR 274. On behalf of the Revenue, CIT v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 159, a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in view of the aforesai…

Shri Gaurav Joshi, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward-1(5), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.274/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Gaurav Joshi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv., B- Ward-1(5), 18, Vakil Building, Model Jalandhar Town Road, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amjpj3603P Assessee By : Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…s not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. A. ITA No. 274/Asr./2018 6 Gaura Joshi Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) . Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984) 43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj). , On behalf of the Revenue, CIT vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 214 : (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Gui), a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited. On a conside…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the information, then it need not be acted upon imme…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2012[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the information, then it need not be acted upon imme…

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

…e issue in hand:- A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v.…

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

…e issue in hand:- A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) 11 Ms. Seema Dilip vora CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

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

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.12. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained that there was no difference between the 17 M/s Gold…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 4.13. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court explained that there was no difference between the observations…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.15. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained that there was no difference between the observation…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.15. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained that there was no difference between the observation…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observa tions in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 16.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [199…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observa tions in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 23.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [199…

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

…worth mentioning: A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v.…

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

…worth mentioning: A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v.…

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

…e issue in hand:- A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v.…

35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. (82 ITR 831) — Cited in 44 Judgments | BharatTax