561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. v. ACIT (

243 CTR 520Reported decision#20154 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. v. ACIT (

SHRI AYYAPPAN UNNITHAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 94/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153A

…assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Foramer France (284 ITR 66), Hon'ble High Courts of Uttaranchal (259 ITR 138), Rajasthan (209 CTR 136), Bombay (243 CTR 520) and also the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Southern Cashew Exporters vs DCIT in ITA No.529/Coch/2010 dt. 02.03.2012. The case of the assessee was that the sole reason for reopening the assessment was based on this current account a copy of I.T.A. Nos.76,94 & 291/Coch/2018 which was already filed at the time of origin…

SHRI VIJAYAN UNNITHAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 291/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153A

…assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Foramer France (284 ITR 66), Hon'ble High Courts of Uttaranchal (259 ITR 138), Rajasthan (209 CTR 136), Bombay (243 CTR 520) and also the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Southern Cashew Exporters vs DCIT in ITA No.529/Coch/2010 dt. 02.03.2012. The case of the assessee was that the sole reason for reopening the assessment was based on this current account a copy of I.T.A. Nos.76,94 & 291/Coch/2018 which was already filed at the time of origin…

DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE TATA FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…le to be quashed. For this proposition he places reliance on the following judicial precedents. i) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom.) ii) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom.) iii) Titanor Components Ltd. v ACIT (243 CTR 520) (Bom.) iv) United Shippers Ltd. v. ACIT (371 ITR 441) (Bom.) v) Tao Publishing (P.) Ltd. v DCIT (370 ITR 135)(Bom.) vi) Crompton Greaves Ltd. v ACIT (275 CTR 49) (Bom.) vii) Business India v JCIT (370 ITR 154) (Bom.) viii) Sound Casting (P.) Ltd. v DCIT (250 CTR 119) (Bom.) ix) Priya Blue Industries (P.) Ltd. v DCIT (30 taxmann.com 68) (Guj) 8…

BASANTI JEEVANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…147 of the Act after due application of mind. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. vs ACIT (324 ITR 240)(Bom.), Titanor components Ltd. vs ACIT (243 CTR 520)(Bom.) supports our view. The material facts were duly made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. Even assuming that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind, assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion. The ratio laid down in Asian Paints Ltd. vs CIT (2009) (308 IR 195)(Bom.),…

561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. v. ACIT ( (243 CTR 520) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax