A. L. A. Firm v. CIT

102 ITR 622High Court1976#3145 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'.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 147Section 148Section 115JBSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)section 43(1)written down valueblock of assetsliable to taxchange of opiniontangible materialescapement of incomecross objectionrevenue expendituresection 115jbreason to believe

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

Ramya Steel Syndicate, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.526 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2008-2009) M/S Ramya Steel Syndicate Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2) Plot No.21A & 21B Vijayawada Iron Complex Bhavanipuram Vijayawada [Pan :Aacfr7326L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…, 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 in such circumstances. The above decision was held in the following cases: (i) L.A. Firm Vs. CIT (Med) 102 ITR 622. (ii) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 516. (iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs. DC!T & Ors, (Mad) 241 ITR 856. (iv) EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (AU) 30 DTR 82. 5.2.2. Appellant cannot rake up issue of reopening once assesses participated in the reassessment proceedings after receipt of order passed by Assessing Officer rejecti…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 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…

The Dy. CIT, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, L/H. C.D.V. Subba Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…for the details regarding the payment of service tax and there is no finding either positive or negative arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. c. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (i) ALA Firm vs CIT (Mds) 102 ITR 622 Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 (ii) (iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors (Mad) 241 ITR 856 (W) EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not struck down the reassessment proceedings as it transpires from the record that the liability of service tax is not allowable u/s436of the Act…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…of original assessment. In such a case if the assessment is reopened in respect of a matter M/s Crescent Construction Co. covered by the disclosure, it would amount to change of opinion. The following cases are worth mentioning: 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…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…of original assessment. In such a case if the assessment is reopened in respect of a matter M/s Crescent Construction Co. covered by the disclosure, it would amount to change of opinion. The following cases are worth mentioning: 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…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Florind Shoes (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 820/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.265 & 820/Mds/2014 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Respondent: 13.03.2017
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, an 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, as held by several courts, like - • A.L.A. Firm Vs CIT 102 ITR 622 (Mad), • Ess Kay Engineering Co (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) • Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCLT & Ors 241 ITR 856 (Mad) • EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT 3ODTR 82 (All) Change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot…

Floring Shoes P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 265/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.265 & 820/Mds/2014 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Respondent: 13.03.2017
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, an 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, as held by several courts, like - • A.L.A. Firm Vs CIT 102 ITR 622 (Mad), • Ess Kay Engineering Co (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) • Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCLT & Ors 241 ITR 856 (Mad) • EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT 3ODTR 82 (All) Change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2629/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियकसद"यएवं "ीिड.एस. सु"दर"सह,लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner of C/o. S. Sridhar, v. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - II, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAEPT 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2628/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियकसद"यएवं "ीिड.एस. सु"दर"सह,लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner of C/o. S. Sridhar, v. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - II, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAEPT 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

M/S. Ellore Jewel Place, Bangalore vs. ITO-Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm is

ITA 1646/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Km/S. Ellore Jewel Palace, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 620, Avenue Road, Ward-2(2), Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 002. Now: Ward-5(2)(1), Pan : Aaafe3111A Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 14Section 143(1)Section 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. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion. ALA Firm v. CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd v. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818. Revathy C.P. Equipments ltd. v. DCIT & Ors (Mad) 241 ITR 856, EMA India Ltd v. ACIT (ALL) 30 DTR 82. Change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when assessing officer has taken on permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as pe…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…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…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…espect of a matter covered by the disclosure, it would amount to change of opinion. The ratio 8 M/s Mumbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O. No.39/Mum/2016 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…

Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5920/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K.B.DesaiFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ngh Raghubir Singh Vs. CIT (16 ITR 433)(Nag). (vii). Comm. Of Agri. Income tax Vs.Raja Jagdish Chandra Dhabal (171TR 426)(Cal). (viii). S.D Sharma Vs. CIT (45 ITR 107 )(Mah). (ix). Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (95 ITR 151)(Del). (x). A.L.A Firm Vs. CIT (102 ITR 622)(Mad). (xi). Addl. CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh (136 ITR 645)(Del). (xii).CIT Vs. Malayala Manorma and Co. Ltd. (143 ITR 29)(Kar). (xiii).Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (163 ITR 659) (xiv). CIT Vs. Precision Steel and Engg. Works (179 ITR 283)(P&H). (xv). East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. C.R Shekhar Reddy & Anr. (230 ITR 622)(Kar) (xvi). UCO Bank…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…d primary facts at the time of original assessment. 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 following cases are worth mentioning: 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…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…dingly erred in treating the proceedings initiated u/s.147 as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in not following the judicial decisions in the cases viz. (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) EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 wherein it has been held that when there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no details were called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…t the time of original 8 Mr. R.P. Suvarna assessment. 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 following cases are worth mentioning: 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…

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 1625/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde-ARFor Respondent: Jasbir Chauhan-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 2Section 254(1)

…f section 147 of the Act,that while framing the original assessment he had not formed any opinion,that there was no question of change in opinion in the case under consideration.He relied upon the cases of ESS Kay Engineering (P) Ltd.(247ITR 818); A.L.A Firm (102 ITR 622) and EMA India Ltd. (226 CTR 659). 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We find that an open offer was made by Oracle to the share holders of I-flex at the price of Rs.1,475/- per share, that the open offer indicated that additional offer of Rs11.35 per share was to be payable to the share holders,that…