56 ITR 1 (Del.) 2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd.

237 ITR 668High Court1999#13806 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing 56 ITR 1 (Del.) 2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd.

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

…) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [237 ITR 668 (Guj)] 7) General Mrigendra Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. ITO [123 ITR 329,335 (Delhi)] We therefore submit that since all details regarding depreciation on investments are available on record to the then Assessing Officer, there is no occasion for reopening our assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 beyond four years from the end of said a…

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

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…er decision in Boudier Christian’s case, it will obviously amount to mere change of opinion, and hence the notice under section 147/148 would be illegal.” We may also notice that a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 668, while expressing similar views observed (page 674) : “The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which led to the belief about the escapement of assessment disclose that the present case is nothing but mere change of opinion on the facts which were already before the Assessing Officer while making the first assessment to which conscious appli…

Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 3077/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Vasundhara Upmanyu, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Co. Ltd.] - 9 - even from the materials already available on record, if subsequently AO has reason to believe that there was escapement of assessment, surely he can issue notice u/s 148, Decision referred to by the appellant in the case of Garden Silk Mills 237 ITR 668 (Guj) is in respect of notice u/s 148 issued under law of section 147 as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 1.4.89. This decision is therefore not applicable in appellant's case. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, and other cases, sufficiency of reasons recorded by the AO cannot be questioned fo…

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

…by following circular no.549 of CBDT held that on mere change of opinion of AO cannot be a ground for re-assessment and that amendment of sec. 147 w.e.f. 1.4.89 has not altered the position. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd., 237 ITR 668 held that “however wide the scope of taking action u/s 148 of IT Act, it does not confirm jurisdiction on change of the interpretation of a particular provision earlier adopted by the assessing authority. For coming to the conclusion that there has been excessive loss or depreciation allowance or that there has been under assessment or assessment…

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

…ion. The following decisions supports our view:- 1) CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) 2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT vs Corporation 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.…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…v. ITO ,106 ITR 1(SC) iv) Addl. CIT v. Shankerdas B. Pahljani in ITA no. 5085/Mum/ 2001(Mum Trib.) v) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1(Del.)(FB) vi) Wyeth India Private Limited v. IAC 137 ITR 20(Bom.) vii) Garden Silk Mills Private Limited v. DCIT 237 ITR 668(Guj.) viii) Jindal Photo Mills Limited v. DCIT 234 ITR 170(Del) ix) India Steamship Co. Limited v. JCIT 194 CTR 386(Cal.) x) Transworld International Inc. 192 CTR 97(Del) It was also submitted that reassessment has been made mainly based on the audit observation which is not permitted in law. The assesse company also relied upon following case l…