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

ITO, WD-46(1), Kolkata vs. Provash Adhikari, Howrah

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

ITA 1101/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Sallon Yaden, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: none appeared
Section 143(3)

…e brought into account till its actual realization. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an exceptional situation only where the above method of valuation of stock will not be applied. This has been done in the case of Sakhti Trading Co. Vs. CIT (250 ITR 871), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a dissolution of the firm coupled with discontinuation of the business, the stock has to be valued at market price. This is because in the case of dissolution of the firm with discontinuation of business, "going 3 concern concept" does not apply and the accounts are required to be se…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

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

…t is important and relevant is that the principle of "change of opinion" was equally applicable under the un-amended 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. 2.15. Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years or merely on the change of opinion, he can do so only if the assessee has fallen short of his duty t…

Ramesh Kocha, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1379/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah,Ld.ARFor Respondent: N.Hemalatha, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ITA NOs.1379 &1380/Mum/2017 Ramesh Kocha Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी सी. नाग" "साद, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1379 &1380/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ramesh Kocha Income Tax Officer-24(3)(4) बनाम/ 603, Bharat Apartments C-13,BKC Gandhi Garam Road,Juhu Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AMEPK-8638-E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Re…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

Section 28

…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…

Dipak Kumar Dasbhowmik, Paschim Midnapore vs. I.T.O., Ward - 38(1), Midnapore, Paschim Midnapore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2384/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…Assessment Year: 2012-2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2384/KOL./2017 Assessment year: 2012-2013 Dipak Kumar Dasbhowmik,................................................Appellant C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers’ Lodge”, P.O. Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712 105 [PAN: ADDPD 6112 C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..................................................…….....Respondent Ward-38(1), Midnapore, Income Tax Office, Amaravati building, Keranitola, P.O. Midnapore, Dist. Midnapore(W)-721 101…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…hat is important and relevant is that the principle of "change of opinion" was equally applicable under the un-amended 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. 4.16. Another aspect of the matter is that under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "a reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the 2…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…at is important and relevant is that the principle of "change of opinion" was equally applicable under the un-amended 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. 2.17. Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the assessee has fallen short of his duty…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…at is important and relevant is that the principle of "change of opinion" was equally applicable under the un-amended 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. 2.17. Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the assessee has fallen short of his duty…

Indira Industries, Ranipet vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1262/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Indira Industries, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Ranipet 632 403, Tamil Nadu. Circle 1, Vellore. [Pan: Aaafi2440N] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘ए’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s. Indira Industries, The Assistant Commissioner of No. 6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Ranipet 632 403, Tamil Nadu. Circle 1, Vellore. [PAN: AAAFI2440N] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

…s in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 16.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) wherein the 22 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, inter alia, on the above issue held as under (page 298) : "Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC…

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 5613/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5613/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Rustomjee Evershine Joint Tax, Central Circle 10 Venture Private Limited बनाम/ Room No.802,8Th Floor Global City, Narangi Bypass Road Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road Close To Viva College Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Virar(West),Thane Thane-401 303 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.111/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rustomjee Evershine Joint Deputy Commissioner Of Venture Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 10 बनाम/ Room No.802,8Th Floor Global City, Narangi Bypass Road Close To Viva College Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road Vs. Virar(West),Thane Mumbai – 400 020 Thane-401 303 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaar-7687-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Naresh Kumar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.Daya Sagar, Ld. DR (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…above findings, this Court had placed reliance on the following decisions of the apex Court: (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC); (2) Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC); and (3) A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). 11. We may recapitulate the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) : “ A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade either at cost or at market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…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…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…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…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1633/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1186, 1631, 1632 & 1633/Mds/2015 COs. 27 & 28/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos. 1631 & 1632/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kali BMH Systems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. No.42/6, B.2, Chennai Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Melacauvery, Kumbakonam – 612 002. [PAN: AADCK 0974H] (…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1632/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1186, 1631, 1632 & 1633/Mds/2015 COs. 27 & 28/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos. 1631 & 1632/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kali BMH Systems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. No.42/6, B.2, Chennai Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Melacauvery, Kumbakonam – 612 002. [PAN: AADCK 0974H] (…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1631/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1186, 1631, 1632 & 1633/Mds/2015 COs. 27 & 28/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos. 1631 & 1632/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kali BMH Systems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. No.42/6, B.2, Chennai Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Melacauvery, Kumbakonam – 612 002. [PAN: AADCK 0974H] (…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1186/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1186, 1631, 1632 & 1633/Mds/2015 COs. 27 & 28/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos. 1631 & 1632/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kali BMH Systems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. No.42/6, B.2, Chennai Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Melacauvery, Kumbakonam – 612 002. [PAN: AADCK 0974H] (…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…s in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 23.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the apex court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) 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, inter alia, on the above issue held as under (page 298) : "Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) th…

Pratiksha Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…the partners as can be seen from the partners' capital account and the several clauses of the dissolution deed. 5.1.1 The appellant has contended that even assuming while not conceding that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ALA Firm vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 is triggered off in its case, at the highest, what can be valued at market price are the unsold flats as on 01.09.2002, the date of dissolution. From the chart enclosed it was apparent that in respect of the four flats bearing Nos. 102,303, 803 and 1201, the consideration was received in advance prior to 31.03.2002 amounting to Rs.1,42,98,000/- a…

Sakthi Poultry Farm, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.1284 & 1285/Mds/2017 Assessment Years: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/s. Sakthi Poultry Farm, The Income Tax Officer, Buddareddiyur, Bukkampatty PO, Vs. Ward III(1), No. 3, Gandhi Road, Mecheri, Salem. Salem 636 007. [PAN:ABAFS3031L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…