3i Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT

329 ITR 257High Court2010#3189 most cited

What is 3i Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

An assessee cannot simply produce account books or evidence during assessment and then claim the assessment was improperly reopened. Producing books does not automatically constitute a "disclosure" for the purposes of challenging reassessment, especially when fresh information is gathered.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

3i Infotech Ltd v ACIT · 329 ITR 257 · reassessment · section 147 · full and true disclosure · fresh tangible material · mere change of opinion · assessment procedure · evidence · onus

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 10AASection 115JBSection 151Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)full and true disclosurebeyond four yearscircular tradingsection 151(2)initial assessment yearfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionsection 10aacomputer softwaresection 144c(1)section 10a

Judgments citing 3i Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…y be Income that has escaped Assessment in the hands of the Appellant in the case due to the failure of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 2. The Appellant submits that in 3i Infotech Ltd. V. ACIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that “the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons which have weighed with the Assessing Officer. Those norms cannot be added to or supported on a basis which was not present to the mind of the Assessing Officer ITA 437/JP/2017_ 8 DCIT Vs. Vimal Ch…

M/S Paramount Properties & Estate Developments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tice would not be relevant for the purpose of s. 147—Impugned notices quashed on the ground that those were issued after expiry of four years without assessee's default” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3I Infotech Ltd.-vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257(Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year would stand barred unless income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment inter alia by the failure on the par…

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

…ng cannot be done beyond a period of four years, when the material facts were fully disclosed by the assessee. 2.5. We find that on the issue of reopening, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) considered the decision in 31 Infotech Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom.), Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 614 (Cal.) and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 221 ITR 492 and Income Tax Officer vs Bhanji Lav Ji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (Del.) held that reopening is correct. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in…

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

…ng cannot be done beyond a period of four years, when the material facts were fully disclosed by the assessee. 2.5. We find that on the issue of reopening, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) considered the decision in 31 Infotech Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom.), Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 614 (Cal.) and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 221 ITR 492 and Income Tax Officer vs Bhanji Lav Ji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (Del.) held that reopening is correct. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) 9. 3i Infotech Ltd v CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) 10. ACIT v ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd [2002] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 11. Bedmutha Industries Ltd v DCIT [2013] 87 DTR 305 (Bom) 12. Titanor Components Ltd v ACIT [2012] 342 ITR 183 (Bom) 13. Asian Paints Ltd v DCIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 14. Hindustan Lever Ltd v R B Wadkar, ITO [2004] 268 ITR 332(Bom) 15. NDT Systems v ITO [2014] 3…

A.C.I.T Cir - 36, Kolkata. vs. M/S Sri Ram Commercial Co, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tice would not be relevant for the purpose of s. 147—Impugned notices quashed on the ground that those were issued after expiry of four years without assessee's default” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3I Infotech Ltd.-vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257(Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 9 "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant…

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tea Propoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tice would not be relevant for the purpose of s. 147—Impugned notices quashed on the ground that those were issued after expiry of four years without assessee's default” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3I Infotech Ltd.-vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257(Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 9 "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tice would not be relevant for the purpose of s. 147—Impugned notices quashed on the ground that those were issued after expiry of four years without assessee's default” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3I Infotech Ltd.-vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257(Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 9 "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tice would not be relevant for the purpose of s. 147—Impugned notices quashed on the ground that those were issued after expiry of four years without assessee's default” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3I Infotech Ltd.-vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257(Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 9 "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant…

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

…ra 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 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kama…

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

…ra 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 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kama…

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

…lieve that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was not sustainable. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of 3i Infotech -vs.- ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257{Bom.)wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: "6.The proviso however stipulates that where an assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3), action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year would stand barred unless income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment inter alia by the failure on the par…

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

…0) 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 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…Monitor India (P) Ltd. 4. (2012) 68 DTR 85 (Bom), NYK Line (India) Ltd. 5. (2011)349 ITR 150 (Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens Information System Ltd..v. ACIT The assessee company submitted that it had truly and fully disclosed all the materials while filing its return of income and during the original as…

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

…ra 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 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kama…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…ty and cannot be considered to be a ordinary piece of evidence which could not have been noticed by the AO with due diligence. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (351 ITR 23) 2. 31 Infotech Ltd. vs. CIT (329 ITR 257) 8 ITA No.3417/M/2009, CO No.201/M/2012 & ITA No.3326/M/2009 M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (formerly known as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) 10. The Ld. Sr. Counsel referring to the observations made by the AO in the original assessment order submitted, a reading of the assessment order would reveal that the AO has in detail examined assessee’s clai…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3326/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…ty and cannot be considered to be a ordinary piece of evidence which could not have been noticed by the AO with due diligence. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (351 ITR 23) 2. 31 Infotech Ltd. vs. CIT (329 ITR 257) 8 ITA No.3417/M/2009, CO No.201/M/2012 & ITA No.3326/M/2009 M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (formerly known as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) 10. The Ld. Sr. Counsel referring to the observations made by the AO in the original assessment order submitted, a reading of the assessment order would reveal that the AO has in detail examined assessee’s clai…