How many judgments cite A. L. A. Firm v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite A. L. A. Firm v. CIT (102 ITR 622), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does A. L. A. Firm v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 115JB, Section 139, Section 142(1).

A. L. A. Firm v. CIT

102 ITR 622High Court1976#3149 most cited

What is A. L. A. Firm v. CIT authority for?

Reopening of assessment is justified when it is based on definite materials not considered during original assessment, and no finding was reached on the issue during the original assessment, thus avoiding the issue of 'change of opinion'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

A. L. A. Firm v. CIT · 102 ITR 622 · reopening assessment · change of opinion · tangible material · definite materials · original assessment · escapement of income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 115JB Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)section 43(1)written down value block of assets liable to tax change of opinion tangible material escapement of income cross objection revenue expenditure section 115jb reason to believe

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

KAJAL BATRA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-52(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

…finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings in such situations and facts of the case there is no question of change of opinion as upheld by the jurisprudence as under- 1. A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622 2. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818 3. Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT& Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 4. EMAIndia Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 h. It is worthwhile to mention that the argument of change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original…

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…e materials which were not considered at the time of original assessment proceedings. Under such circumstances, reopening of assessment, in my view, is justified. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. ALA. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Mad) 102 ITR 622 ii Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(SC) 247 ITR 818 iii. EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (All) 30 DTR 82. 5.2.3 From the records of appellant for subsequent Assessment Year i.e., Assessment Year 2008-09, it was observed that the appellant was in the practice of purchase of lands and selling the same subsequently by making…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…148 ITR 149) (Cal); (205 ITR 589) (AP); (147 ITR 332) (Mad); (12 ITR 385) (La); (16 ITR 325) (P); (16 ITR 433 ) (Mag); (17 ITR 426) (Cal); (23 ITR 87) ( SC); (45 ITR 107); Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 (95 ITR 151) (Del); (102 ITR 622) (Mad); (136 ITR 645) (Del); (143 ITR 29) (Ker); (163 ITR 659) (Karn.); (179 ITR 283) (P&H); and (230 ITR 622) (Karn.). In the following decisions courts have held that circulars are binding on the Revenue: Uco Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC); Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and Dhiren Chemicals (254 ITR 554)…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e which escaped its notice, it will not amount, to review of the order or change of opinion. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 147 is bad in law ignoring the decision of Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT reported in 102 ITR 622 wherein it was held that where the Assessing Officer had not considered the material and subsequently come by the material from the record itself, then such a case would fall within the scope of section 147 of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in partly al/owing the appeal of the assessee holding that the reopening u/s. 147 is bad in law witho…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…three volumes of the Manual of Office Procedure can be characterized as a Bimal Paul, AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 binding Notification. Moreover, it is useful to take note the observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.L.A. Firm vs CIT [1976] reported in 102 ITR 622, [affirmed in (1991) 55 Taxman 497 (SC) ], which is as under: "The decisions of the Supreme Court in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. KK Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC) and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1971] 82 ITR 913 (SC) must be considered to be the exceptional ones". 4.6 In the case of…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…f original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinion - refer refer- A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Firm vs. CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay M/s Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. M/s Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs…

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

…s Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661(SC). 4.9. When no finding either positive or negative is arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinionrefer ~ A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). Assessment u/s 143(3) vis-a-vis non consideration of an issue-reopening is valid as held in (2013) 89 DTR (Ker) 31 Innovative Foods Ltd. UOI. 4.10 Even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original as…

ITO, WARD-2,, PERAMBALUR vs. SHRI S.B. RAJA,, ARIYALUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3189/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri. S.B. Raja, Ward -2, V. No. 14, North Street, Perambalur. Soorkuzhi, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Tulak, Ariyalur 621 801. [Pan: Anzpr 3754L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. I.P. Roopa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. I.P. Roopa, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri. S.B. Raja, Ward -2, v. No. 14, North Street, Perambalur. Soorkuzhi, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Tulak, Ariyalur 621 801. [PAN: ANZPR 3754L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. I.P. Roopa, JCIT सुनव…

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661(SC). 4.9. When no finding either positive or negative is arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinion- refer - A.L.A. Firm vs, CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). Assessment u/s 143(3) vis-a-vis non consideration of an issue-reopening is valid as held in (2013) 89 DTR (Ker) 31 Innovative Foods Ltd. vs UOI. 4.10. Even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the origina…

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

HEMALATHA RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 668/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 147

…e recognized. Reliance can be placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala and Madras High Courts in the cases of United Mercantile Co. Ltd vs. CIT, (1967) 64 ITR 218 (Ker), Muthukrishna Reddiar vs. CIT, (1973) 90 ITR 503 (Ker) and A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 622 (Mad). Admittedly ITA Nos.667 &668/19 :- 11 -: in the present case, MOU dated 20.08.2008 was on record but there is nothing on record to show that the Assessing Officer had examined clauses of the MOU governing the contribution of donation by M/s. Ranstand Holdings, NV, Netherlands to Sornammal Educational Trust, Chennai as a gesture of goo…

KARUPPUSAMY PANDIARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 147

STERLING JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 6154/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.6154, 6155, 6156, 6157 & 6158/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Sterling Jewels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit-5(3)(2) 208, A-Z Industrial Estate 460, Aaykar Bhawan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K.Road, Churchgate Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs3316D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…there is no discussion on this issue and no details are called for by the AO or filed by the appellant and no findings either positive or negative in the original assessment proceedings, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA fir vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pvt.Ltd. vs. CiT (247 ITR 818) (SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs DCIT & Ors (241 ITR 856 ) (Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (All.HC) (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287)(SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the ass…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4938/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gurjit Batra and Shri S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings there is no question of change of opinion:- i) A.L.A. Firm Vs CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622 ii) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 iv) EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT (AH) 30 DTR 82 3. 3. It was held in following judgement that change of opinion comes to rescue of 3. 3. assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of…

TANAYA GEMS & JEWELLERY EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly confirm the addition. The ground is dismissed

ITA 3196/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 68

…there is no discussion on this issue and no details are called for by the AO or filed by the appellant and no findings either positive or negative in the original assessment proceedings, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA Firm vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (247 ITR 818)(SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs. DCIT &Ors (241 ITR 856)(Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (All. HC) (iii) Supreme Court in the case of Kalyariji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 iTR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI vs. CALVIN PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

ITA 6561/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…here is no discussion on this issue and no details are called for by the AO or filed by the appellant and no findings either positive or negative in the original assessment proceedings, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA Firm vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pyf. Lfcf vs. CIT (247 ITR R18)(SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs. DCIT &0rs (241 ITR 856)(Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (AIL HC) (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the…

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…s plea of the reasons recorded as amounting to a change of opinion, without in any manner suggesting that, where so, it would not, even under the amended law, bar reassessment. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad.). 4. At the same time, however, in our view, the AO’s action is not sustainable in law. Action u/s. 147 is no doubt permissible on the basis of ‘reason/s’ to believe being derived from the same material which was the subject matter of the assessment proceedings, as clarified in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281 IT…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…sessment. In such a case if the assessment is reopened in respect of a matter covered by the disclosure, it would amount to change of opinion. The ratio laid down in the following cases usefully throw lights on the issue in hand:- A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622 (Mad) (para 9) A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) (paras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2