Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

394 ITR 733High Court2017#2719 most cited

What is Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

If the issue that led to the reopening of an assessment does not sustain, an addition to income cannot be made on a different issue. This is especially true if an order under section 143(3) has already been passed and the reopening is based on a mere change of opinion.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd · section 143(3) · reopening assessment · change of opinion · addition on different issue · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)section 32(1)(iia)section 13(1)(c)(ii)clarificatory amendmentsection 140section 234dsection 13(1)(b)section 164(2)additional depreciationkelvinatorsection 13(1)(d)income escaping assessment

Judgments citing Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…es not sustain, addition on a different issue cannot be made. (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017)394 ITR 733 (Madras) (iv) CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Bom) (v) CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) (vi) CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag) (Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) (vii) CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V. Living Media India Ltd (…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ot sustain, addition on a different issue cannot be made. (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) (ii)CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017)394 ITR 733 (Madras) (iv) CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Bom) (v) CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) (vi) CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag) (Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) (vii) CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V. Living Media India Ltd (…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ot sustain, addition on a different issue cannot be made. (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) (ii)CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017)394 ITR 733 (Madras) (iv) CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Bom) (v) CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) (vi) CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag) (Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) (vii) CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V. Living Media India Ltd (…

Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 212/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sical Logistics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner 73, Armenian Street, Vs. of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 001. Company Circle 6(3), Chennai -34. PAN: AAACS 3789B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Suresh G…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…ng officer to independently assess only that income which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings. If he intends to do so a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary. c) Martech peripherals p Limited Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) If notice for reopening of assessment was issued on one aspect and in course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, reassessment order would be valid only if aspect which led to reopening of assessment continues to form part of reassessed income. d) DCIT Vs Takshila education society (Patna) 431 DTR 332 Where there is no…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/239/2019HC Delhi19 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263Section 40A(3)

…63 of the Act. 13. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this score as well. This view is covered by the various judgments including the judgment rendered in Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2017] 394 ITR 733 (Mad) by one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J. when sitting in the Madras High Court. The following observations being apposite are extracted hereafter: “20 The petitioner-assessee, however, challenges this action of the respondents-Revenue, on the ground that it was not permissible for the respondents-Revenue to tax the forfeited share appli…

Mars Mercantiles Pvt.Ltd., Dhanbad vs. Assistant Commissione of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pranab Kr. Koley, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ct of unsecured loans of Rs.29,75,000/-. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Ltd. 331 ITR 236 and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 733 wherein it was held as under: “Whether Explanation 3 of section 147 Clearly expounds that if, notice for reopening of assessment was issued on one aspect, and in course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, reassessment order would be valid, only if, aspect, which led to reopening of assessment, continues to form part of reas…

D. Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 107/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…7/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 3.5 So far as case law relied on in the written submissions of the assessee is concerned, the decision in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 733 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in that case, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act without dealing with the objections filed qua the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not raised any objection against th…

Shri D. Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 2417/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…7/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 3.5 So far as case law relied on in the written submissions of the assessee is concerned, the decision in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 733 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in that case, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act without dealing with the objections filed qua the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not raised any objection against th…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. B.P.Poddar Foundation for Education

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…(2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 10 (2011) 336 ITR 136 11 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) 12 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) 15 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 16 T.C. (A) No. 1548 of 2008 17 (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) 18 (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) 19 (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) 20 (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 8 of 16 said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for th…

S.A.Bhimaraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3414/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3414/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 2(14)(a)

…r income which comes to his knowledge during reassessment proceedings. In this regard, he has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 733. The case laws relied upon by the assessee are as under:- 1) CIT v Dr. Devendra Gupta [2008] 220 CTR 629 (Raj) 2) CIT v Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 3) CIT v Jet Airways (I) Ltd [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 4) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) 5) CIT v Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 355 ITR 172 6) Oriental Bank of Commerc…

M/S. Laxmi Rolling and Strips Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2013/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…owing judgments :- (i) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj.)] (ii) Ms.Jayanthi Natarajan v. ACIT [(2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.)] (iii) Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad.)] (iv) Tolins Rubbers v. ACIT [(2004) 270 ITR 280 (Ker.)] (v) Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. ACIT [(2015) 370 ITR 107 (Guj.)] 8. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the violation in the matter of procedure was only an irregularity which could be cured by remitting the matter to the authority and any lapse on the part…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

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

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt Ltd vs. DICT & Anr (2017) 394 ITR 733. Without prejudice to this, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that provision towards reducing the amounts from contract receipts were made based on the Government Order No.5905/SM , dated 07.09.2010 issued by the Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines and this provision represents the amount which the mine owners proposed to…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

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

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt Ltd vs. DICT & Anr (2017) 394 ITR 733. Without prejudice to this, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that provision towards reducing the amounts from contract receipts were made based on the Government Order No.5905/SM , dated 07.09.2010 issued by the Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines and this provision represents the amount which the mine owners proposed to…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt Ltd vs. DICT & Anr (2017) 394 ITR 733. Without prejudice to this, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that provision towards reducing the amounts from contract receipts were made based on the Government Order No.5905/SM , dated 07.09.2010 issued by the Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines and this provision represents the amount which the mine owners proposed to…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt Ltd vs. DICT & Anr (2017) 394 ITR 733. Without prejudice to this, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that provision towards reducing the amounts from contract receipts were made based on the Government Order No.5905/SM , dated 07.09.2010 issued by the Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines and this provision represents the amount which the mine owners proposed to…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. : AAACE1157B (Appellan…

S.Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 1 (Tiruvallur), Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1905/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. S. Praveen Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.33/3, Ground Floor, Ward I, (Tiruvallur), Veerappan Street, Kancheepuram. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001. [Pan Aaipp 9343H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C ‘ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1905/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. Shri. S. Praveen Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.33/3, Ground floor, Ward I, (Tiruvallur), Veerappan Street, Kancheepuram. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001. [PAN AAIPP 9343H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. S. Sriniranjani,…

Mr. Hari Poddar & Others, Legal Heirs of Late Smt. Pratibha Poddar, Erode vs. DCIT, Erode

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

ITA 1286/CHNY/2006[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Homi Rajvansh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…nd challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. By filing copy of the decisions in the case of M/s. PVP Ventures Ltd. v DCIT in W.A. No. 1171 & 1172 of 2015 dated 27.10.2015 as well as in the case of Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 733 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. He further relied on the relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. 331 ITR 236) and prayed that the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act may be set aside. On the oth…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…31 ITR 236 (Bom)CIT v. M/s Jet Airways (I) Ltd. iii) 354 ITR 549 (Del) CIT v. Cheil Communication India (P) Ltd. iv) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) CIT v. Shri Ram Sing v) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants vi) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani vii) 394 ITR 733 (Mad Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DIT) 8 It was also submitted that action u/s 147 has been taken mechanically on the basis of AIR information and based on non application of mind and, therefore the proceedings are without jurisdiction. Reference was made to communication dated 13.8.2014 prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and respons…