493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT

222 ITR 68High Court1996#12426 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT

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)

…een held in the following judicial pronouncements that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and ab-initio void: a) CIT v. Rao Tahkur Narayan Singh (56 ITR 234) (SC) b) CIT v. BhanjiLavji (79 ITR 582) c) Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (222 ITR 68) d) CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (263 ITR 180) e) ACIT v. Champdany Industries Ltd. (95 ITD 169) (Kol) 7 (g) Reliance is also placed on the decision Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami (ITA 112/2014) (TS-166-HC-2014-Del), wherein it has been held as under: “As to what constitutes valid “reasons to believe” is no long…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

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

ITA 315/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…India,, Hyd. would not permit him to apply his mind to the same assessment with a view to correct his own mistakes. It is submitted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd., Vs. DCIT [222 ITR 27] and Garden Silk Mills Ltd., Vs. DC IT [222 ITR 68] had taken a similar view even after the amended 147/148 sections came into force. The Gujarat High Court further held in the case second referred above that mere change of opinion is not sufficient to reopen the assessment and reassessment was not valid. Therefore we submit that since all the information relating to depreciation on investments we…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 192/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…India,, Hyd. would not permit him to apply his mind to the same assessment with a view to correct his own mistakes. It is submitted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd., Vs. DCIT [222 ITR 27] and Garden Silk Mills Ltd., Vs. DC IT [222 ITR 68] had taken a similar view even after the amended 147/148 sections came into force. The Gujarat High Court further held in the case second referred above that mere change of opinion is not sufficient to reopen the assessment and reassessment was not valid. Therefore we submit that since all the information relating to depreciation on investments we…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d on the following judgments : 1. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) 2. B J Services Company Middle East Ltd. Vs. DDIT 12 taxmann.com 493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT 234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d on the following judgments : 1. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) 2. B J Services Company Middle East Ltd. Vs. DDIT 12 taxmann.com 493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT 234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d on the following judgments : 1. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) 2. B J Services Company Middle East Ltd. Vs. DDIT 12 taxmann.com 493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT 234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for…

Grow More Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Singh Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…ion Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. (1996) (220 ITR 194 (iv) Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi. (1979) (119 ITR 996 (Sc)) (v) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (No,2). (1996) (222 ITR 68 (Guj)) The Assessee further submits that now the law is settled in the case of Kelvinator India ltd. reported in that to reopen the assessment even within four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the assessing officer should have some tangible material to form an opinion that there is escapement of income and merely the assessing offic…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) 4) Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk Mills vs DCIT (1996) 222 ITR 68 (Guj.) 8) Mercury Travels DCIT (2002) 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 9)JCIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) 33 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. 10) CIT vs Sambhar Salt ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 675 (Raj.) We find that there was no new tangible material with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to…

493 (Uttarakhand HC) 3. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT (222 ITR 68) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax