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

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2028/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…c) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 G.A.No. 1736 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014. d) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals P Ltd vs DCIT and Another reported in (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) dated 4.4.2017 6.4. Even on merits, from the facts narrated and explanations given hereinabove , we find that the ld AO is not justified in valuing the closing stock of packing materials representing scrap based on the scrap sales made in subsequent years ignoring the principles of valuation of stock as enumerated in AS 2 issued by ICAI wh…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2027/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…c) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 G.A.No. 1736 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014. d) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals P Ltd vs DCIT and Another reported in (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) dated 4.4.2017 6.4. Even on merits, from the facts narrated and explanations given hereinabove , we find that the ld AO is not justified in valuing the closing stock of packing materials representing scrap based on the scrap sales made in subsequent years ignoring the principles of valuation of stock as enumerated in AS 2 issued by ICAI wh…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

…Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. Reported in 354 ITR 536 5. Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashram Ashram vs ITO(Exemption) reported in 386 ITR 222 6. Madras High Court in the case of Martech Pripherals P.Ltd vs DCIT and reported in 394 ITR 733 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that information was received from the Income Tax office (TDS Division) (Bhubaneswar) having jurisdiction over SMPL wherein the employee of SMPL has categorically submitted that the consideration received by the assessee on account of movable/immovable properties and mining capital expenditure was not offe…