A.L.A.Firm v. CIT

183 ITR 285Reported decision#9020 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)fresh tangible materialvaluation of sharessection 40a(2)(b)kelvinatorshare capital and share premiumsection 40a(2)disallowance of interest expenditureamalgamationsection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencytangible material

Judgments citing A.L.A.Firm v. CIT

RAJENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA,KHAKHADABELA,PADDHARI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA NO. 459/RJT/2025 Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.459/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. ITO Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGVPJ2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Da…

HASMUKHBHAI RAGHUBHAI GORIYA,OLD DHUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.195/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukh Raghubhai Goriya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Morbi Village: Old Dhuva, Taluka: J.K. Chamber, National High Way-8A, Wakaner, District: Morbi- Near Ravi Residency Hotel, Lalpar, 363622 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awupg 3221 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…gossip. 14. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285.Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976 ]103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax in…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SVADESHI ENTERPRISE(HUBLI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

…V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs Commissioner of Income Tax 183 ITR 285 wherein the Court held that change of opinion where opinion was formed earlier does not give the Assessing Officer jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. The Apex Court interalia on the above issue held as under: “Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) the position as summari…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under sectio…

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under sectio…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under sectio…

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs Commissioner of Income Tax 183 ITR 285 wherein the Court held that change of opinion where opinion was formed earlier does not give the Assessing Officer jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. The Apex Court interalia on the above issue held as under: “Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) the position as summari…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LTU),, BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

…ed by a subsequent decision in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT 119 ITR 986, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that power to re-open does not include power to review. This has been further reiterated by the Apex Court in ALA Firm vs CIT 183 ITR 285. It was contended that the Assessing Officer was therefore not right in holding that he can review the order of the previous assessing officer. 10. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has noted that some of the branches are located in place which are defined as town panchayat, municipality etc., as per the census…

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2554/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has already made the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) in the assessee`s case and looked into all details and documents including audited balance sheet and Tax Audit Report submitted to him and has made several additions on the basis of said Balance sheet and Tax Audit Report. From the r…

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2553/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has already made the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) in the assessee`s case and looked into all details and documents including audited balance sheet and Tax Audit Report submitted to him and has made several additions on the basis of said Balance sheet and Tax Audit Report. From the r…

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2552/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has already made the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) in the assessee`s case and looked into all details and documents including audited balance sheet and Tax Audit Report submitted to him and has made several additions on the basis of said Balance sheet and Tax Audit Report. From the r…

ACIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MONARCH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…815/Mum/2016 (119 ITR 996) to be not a correct view . The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Jet Speed Audio Private Limited(supra) in para 11 has dealt with this in details. This position was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ALA Firms v. CIT (183 ITR 285) . The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited(Supra) as well following decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Limited(supra) and decision in the case of Asteroid Trading and Investments Private Limited (supra) and Asian Paints Limited(supra)supports the contentions of the asse…