41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

79 ITR 609Supreme Court of India1971#7991 most cited

What is 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Bhanji Lavji authority for?

The burden of disclosing all material facts necessary for assessment lies on the assessee. A disclosure is not automatically considered true and full; it can be partial, false, or misleading.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO · 41 ITR 191 · Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT · CIT v. Bhanji Lavji · CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. · burden of proof · disclosure of material facts · full and true disclosure · assessment proceedings

Judgments citing 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…o re-open, provided there is “tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment, Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief." (f) The Supreme Court has also held in CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (79 ITR 609) that: “Mere disclosure of belief without setting out material on the basis of which belief was arrived at by ITO is not sufficient and therefore, the notice of reassessment is void. A proceeding under Section 147 will not lie merely on the ground that the ITO has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous”. In addition to the af…

Ramotar Singh HUF, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Rewari

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

…ustified. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplex Trading and Industrial Co. Ltd., 378 ITR 351, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd., 79 ITR 609 (SC) and various other decisions as mentioned in the synopsis. He submitted that the duty of the assessee is only to ‘fully and truly’ disclose all primary facts and there is no duty cast by law on the assessee to indicate to AO or draw his intention to what factual, legal or other inferences can be drawn from already available primary facts discl…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14 which had escaped assessment could not be brought to tax u/s 147 of the Act. In support of his said claim the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Calcutta Vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC). 15. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ―D.R‖) took us through the relevant pages of the assessment order. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that the assessee after obtaining the copy of the ‗reasons to believe‘ had vide its letter dated 05.03.2016 filed objections as regards the validity of the reopening of its conclud…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14 which had escaped assessment could not be brought to tax u/s 147 of the Act. In support of his said claim the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Calcutta Vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC). 15. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ―D.R‖) took us through the relevant pages of the assessment order. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that the assessee after obtaining the copy of the ‗reasons to believe‘ had vide its letter dated 05.03.2016 filed objections as regards the validity of the reopening of its conclud…

Ess Kay Bhatta Company, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 278/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 278/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Sh. Arun Gupta & Bhasin Aggarwal (C.As.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Sr. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 40A(3)

…he relevant, primary facts, and the inference to be drawn therefrom, viz. as to admissibility or otherwise of a specific claim or 4 Ess Kay Bhatta Co. v. ITO allowance, is to be by the Revenue authorities (refer, inter alia, CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC). The impugned order completely fails to address this specific charge by the assessee. Further still, it could also be argued that the relevant account having been furnished on being called for during the original proceedings, the same can only be regarded as having been examined thereat by the assessing authority, who though chose not to make…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…e laws on which the Assessee’s counsel relied. 1. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chalitha and others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC). 2. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 79 ITR 609 (SC). 3. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO and others vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437(SC); 4. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 713. 5. Copy of judgment of Tribunal in the caes of Smt. K. Narasamma vs. ITO in…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…essor before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…stion before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…stion before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Anil Bihani 5 Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure ma…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…ty of disclosing all the on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be…

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…ty of disclosing all the on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…7. That is if the assessee had disclosed fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment then, even if the AO has taken an erroneous view it cannot be reviewed after 4 years as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT, Calcutta v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. - 79 ITR 609 (SC). The rationale behind is that legislature has taken care of a situation wherein, the AO commit error, then Commissioner has been empowered u/s 263 to suo-motto to interfere and protect the interest of Revenue. So the completed assessment u/s 143(3) after 4 years, if the assessee has disclosed true and full disclosure of material facts, then…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…7. That is if the assessee had disclosed fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment then, even if the AO has taken an erroneous view it cannot be reviewed after 4 years as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT, Calcutta v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. - 79 ITR 609 (SC). The rationale behind is that legislature has taken care of a situation wherein, the AO commit error, then Commissioner has been empowered u/s 263 to suo-motto to interfere and protect the interest of Revenue. So the completed assessment u/s 143(3) after 4 years, if the assessee has disclosed true and full disclosure of material facts, then…

M/S Atma Ram Properties Private Limited

ITA/52/2010HC Delhi11 Nov 2011
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…ransaction or entries during the year. We do not think that the law/ statute requires or imposes any further obligation on the appellant. The disclosure in the present case by the appellant was full and true. 19. In CIT versus Burlop Dealers Ltd., [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC), a similar provision in Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was examined and it was held that the said provision did not impose a more onerous obligation than disclosing the primary facts relevant to the assessment. It was observed as under: “We are of the view that under section 34(1)(a) if the assessee has disclosed primary f…

41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 609) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax