A.L.A. Firm v. CIT

189 ITR 285Supreme Court of India1991#807 most cited

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

Under the unamended Section 147(b), 'information' for reopening an assessment includes material already on record that comes to the Assessing Officer's notice subsequent to the original assessment, not just material extraneous to the record.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

A.L.A. Firm v. CIT · 189 ITR 285 · Section 147(b) · reopening of assessment · information for reassessment · material on record · subsequent notice · change of opinion · escapement of income · unamended Section 147

Also reported as

55 Taxmann 497

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 250Section 151Section 144Section 69ASection 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)true and full disclosurefull and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormere change of opinionlive linkchange of opiniontangible materialreopening of assessmentescapement of incomereason to believe

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

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, of Income Tax (LTU), Shipping House 10th Floor, 29th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAACT1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The ACIT-LTU, M/s The Shipping Corporation 28th Floor, Centre-1, of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point,…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, of Income Tax (LTU), Shipping House 10th Floor, 29th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAACT1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The ACIT-LTU, M/s The Shipping Corporation 28th Floor, Centre-1, of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point,…

Ravi Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, Ground r.w

ITA 2292/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 47Section 56(2)(vii)

…e market value and that the Assessing Officer wrongly applied the judgment of the market value and that the Assessing Officer wrongly applied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ALA Firm vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) ITR 285 (SC). 9. The ld. D/R, Mr. Altaf Hussain, on the other hand, supported the order of the The ld. D/R, Mr. Altaf Hussain, on the other hand, supported the order of the The ld. D/R, Mr. Altaf Hussain, on the other hand, supported the order of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). As the assessee has not pressed for Assess…

P Arvind Maiya vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

WP/12118/2016HC Karnataka05 Nov 2019

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 143Section 148Section 28

…nder Section 263 is invoked …………… But - 19 - initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion.” 17. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant passage from A.L. A. Firm vs. CIT reported in [1991] 189 ITR 285, it is held that “We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the I.T.O. at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income Tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus is…

P Vikram Maiya vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

WP/11385/2016HC Karnataka05 Nov 2019

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 143Section 148Section 28

…nder Section 263 is invoked …………… But - 19 - initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion.” 17. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant passage from A.L. A. Firm vs. CIT reported in [1991] 189 ITR 285, it is held that “We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the I.T.O. at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income Tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus is…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…ITR 500 Pvt. Ltd. Court 2. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of Hon'ble Bombay High 2013 350 ITR 651 India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. Court 3. ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 188 ITR 247 Court 4. A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 189 ITR 285 Court 5. M/s. Eleganza Jewellery Limited vs. CIT Hon'ble Bombay High W.P.No.2763 of 2013 Court Dated 18/02/2014 6. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Hon'ble Supreme [1999] 236 ITR 34(SC) Ors. Court Dated 17/12/1997 7. Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Hon'ble Bombay High [2013] 356 ITR 200 Court Dated 03/05/2013 8. Multiscreen Media Priv…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…1 ITA 7150/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND Shri Ravish Sood (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITO, 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs M/s Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-III Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 PAN : AACCC6177F APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri K.L. Kanak Respondent by Shri Vimal Punmiya Date of hearing 28-01-2019 Date of pronouncement 12-04-2019 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 26-09-2017 and it pertains to AY 2006-07. The revenue h…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…y or search into facts or law, but was not in fact obtained, would not affect the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen a concluded assessment. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which reference was made by him to ALA Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC). That the attention of the AO was drawn toward the relevant material by the audit party, i.e., through the audit objection, would be of no moment, as explained in CIT v. PVS Beedis Pvt. Ltd. [1991 237 ITR 13 (SC), being followed by the Tribunal, as in Usha International v. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 1615/Del/2008, dated 09.03.2015/copy on record).…

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Beigh, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 538/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(2)Section 44ASection 69

…by the AO, which stand perused, nowhere contradict the proposition on the basis of which the reassessment is being held as without jurisdiction in the present case. Rather, the same, in ratio, support what has been said. For example, in ALA Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) it stands clarified that information in the context of sec. 147 means instruction or knowledge concerning facts or particulars, or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment, again pointing to the need for credible material and, two, of it having a 6 Ghulam Nabi Beigh v. ITO direct bearing on the income escaping assessment for…

The ITO, Kollam vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 477/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…ed on 20.03.2013 by making an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- by recomputing the value of closing stock. The closing stock originally adopted was Rs.1,21,83,206/-. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm, vs. CIT (189 ITR 285), the market value of the closing stock was worked out at Rs.1,48,63,511/-[i.e. 1,21,83,206*122/100] while giving effect to the order u/s.263. As a result, an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- to the business income determined in the original assessment. While giving effect to the order u/s.263 of the CIT (Central), an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- was mad…

The ITO, Kollam vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 476/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…ed on 20.03.2013 by making an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- by recomputing the value of closing stock. The closing stock originally adopted was Rs.1,21,83,206/-. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm, vs. CIT (189 ITR 285), the market value of the closing stock was worked out at Rs.1,48,63,511/-[i.e. 1,21,83,206*122/100] while giving effect to the order u/s.263. As a result, an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- to the business income determined in the original assessment. While giving effect to the order u/s.263 of the CIT (Central), an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- was mad…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers & Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 326/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…ed on 20.03.2013 by making an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- by recomputing the value of closing stock. The closing stock originally adopted was Rs.1,21,83,206/-. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm, vs. CIT (189 ITR 285), the market value of the closing stock was worked out at Rs.1,48,63,511/-[i.e. 1,21,83,206*122/100] while giving effect to the order u/s.263. As a result, an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- to the business income determined in the original assessment. While giving effect to the order u/s.263 of the CIT (Central), an addition of Rs.26,80,305/- was mad…

Shri Kushal Kumar Lunawat, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (CIT)
Section 132(4)

…hen there is no evidence that valuation is not correct. (3) CIT Vs. Indian Sugar and General Industry Export Import (2012) 349 ITR38 (Del): Valuation of closing stock to be made at cost or market price whichever is lower; (4) Shakti Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 871 (SC): Valuation of stock- proper practice- To value closing stock at cost or market whichever is lower. (5) Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR (SC): Choice of method regularly adopted by assessee. Real income, profit and gains should be deductible. Discretion to be exercised judicially and reasonably. Closing stock cannot be valued at ma…

Sh. Sourabh Jain, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-2(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…tute a 'reason to believe that income had escaped 7 A.Y.2012-13 assessment' within the meaning of section 147. Similar view has been taken by the apex court in the following cases :— (i) Phool Chand Bajrang Lai v. ITO 203 FTR 456, 477: (ii) ALA Firm v, CIT 189 ITR 285, 298; (iii) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1 19 ITR 996, 1004; and (iv) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 445. Reliance may please be given in the case of DCIT V, SMITHKLINE BEECH AM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD., IT AT CHD. [2003/ 126 TAXMAN 104 (CHD.)(MAG), Reopening of an assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act is not per…

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

…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 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 19…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…in law without following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V.CIT (1976) 102 ITR (SC), which was subsequently confirmed in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT(1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and A.L.A.Firm v. CIT(1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC).?" 4. "On the facts and circumstances and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee in Ground no.2 to 8 of their appeal on merit and therefore it is humbly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decided the issues contained in ground no.2 to 8 on merit.?" 5. "The appellant prays that the order o…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…ure. In the context, the AO also placed reliance onto the decisions in cases of Jawand Sons [(2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H)], Consolidated Photo a Finvest Ltd [(2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del)], Dr Amin's Pathology Laboratory [(2001) 252 ITR 673 (Bom)] and ALA Firm [(1991 189 ITR 285 (SC)]. I have considered the issue and gone through the detailed submissions filed by the assessee during the appeal proceedings, which finds place in Para 3 of this order above. The issue of chargeability of interest income earned on bank fixed deposits, out of surplus funds [or even out of borrowed funds] under the head "Income from other sourc…

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

…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 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 19…

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…provisions. The Supreme Court was therefore conscious of the said principle, when the observations mentioned above in A.L.A. Firm [1991] 189 ITR 285 were made. It will be appropriate to reproduce the succeeding passage from A.L. A. Firm [1991] 189 ITR 285 (page 299): - 32 - We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the I.T.O. at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income Tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 456/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 456/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dcit 3(3)(1) M/S Rallis India Ltd Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar बिधम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhavan, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr2657N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : C.O. No. 117/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2728/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri A. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain /H
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s Communication India Ltd. (Del) (ITA 383 and 385 of 2012); CIT v. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (Del) (ITA 694/2008); CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd. (315 ITR 211 (Raj); IAC v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. India Ltd. (15 ITD 564) (Born); A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (189 ITR 285) (SC); Alfa Laval India Ltd. v. DCIT (266 ITR 418) (Born); DCIT v. Indroyal Fumiture Co. P. Ltd. (2 ITR (Trib) 628) (Cochin). It was stated that first two judgments specifically deal with the issue of provision for diminution in the value of stock. It was thus stated that the disallowance be deleted.” 17. The ld. DR vehemently submitted before u…