How many judgments cite Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT (362 ITR 403), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT

362 ITR 403High Court2014#828 most cited

What is Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper and adequate inquiry, making it subject to revision under Section 263, unless the revision is a mere change of opinion.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aroni Commercials Ltd v DCIT · Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous assessment order · prejudicial to revenue · mere change of opinion · revision of assessment · Section 147 · Section 148

Also reported as

101 DTR 244

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 139(1)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 263of inadequate enquiry section 263(1)revision under section 263 mere change of opinion section 56(2)(x)revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry malabar industrial change of opinion section 292b

Judgments citing Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT

Sanjay Garudapally, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 12/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. In the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd Vs DCIT [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bombay), the Hon’ble High court held as under: “12. Therefore the power to reassess cannot be exercised on the basis of mere change of opinion i.e. if all facts are available on record and a particular opinion is formed, then merely because there is change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer notice under Section 147/148 of the Act i…

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

M/S. Symphony, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1965/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Symphony बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(2) Skyline Wealth Space Bld, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Vs. First Floor, Skyline Oasis Aayakar Bhavan, Compound Premier Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Vidyavihar (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgf8562C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. By Raising The Ground No. 1 To 4, The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Reopening Of Assessment For Ay. 2012-13. Ground No. 1 To 4 Is As Under: - “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & Completing The Assessment U/S 147. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 On The Basis Of Information On Record & Without Any New Information.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan (Sr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tifiable to assume that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation so furnished by the assessee. 14. This position in law was expounded by this Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304/224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/362 ITR 403 wherein the following observations were made:— "14. ……… We are of the view that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should c…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

…/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…019 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act…

Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…nd 65 ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC Township P. Ltd., Delhi. consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…Guj) 47. Kamlesh Sharma, 287 ITR 337 (Del) 48. Allana Cold Storage Ltd.. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) 49. Asian Paints Limited, 296 ITR 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC Ltd, 45 Taxman.com 443(Guj) 54. Lakhmani Mewal Das. 103 ITR 437.448(SC) 55. Arjun Singh, 246 ITR 363, 405(MP) 56. Seth Brothers. 251 ITR 270 (Guj) 57. Bombay Pharma Products, 237 ITR 614 (MP) 58. Lokendra Singh Rathore, 155 ITR 629 (MP) 59. United Electrical Co. (P) Limited, 258 ITR 317 (Del) 60. Foramer France 364 ITR…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…pra) and on this count also reassessment proceedings and consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…/2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the…

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1016/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

…sed. This is a settled law that although the res judicata does not apply to the tax preceding but the consistency should be maintained. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: " ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TADX AND ANOTHER [362 ITR 403] " GALILEO NEDERLAND BY vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIN) [367 ITR 319] " Nuclear Power corporation of India Ltd. vs. Dy. Director of Income tax (intl. Taxation) [ITAT-Mum; ITA 733-35/Mum/11] From the above judgments, it is crystal clear that the consistency should be maintained to maintain the uniformity, of the facts…

Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parmit M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR)

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…High Court), OHM Stock Brokers. Ltd versus CIT (351 ITR 443) (Bombay High Court), GKN Sinter Metal Ltd versus ACIT (WP No.2639 of 2007) (Bombay High Court), German Remedies Ltd versus DCIT 285 ITR 26 (Bombay High Court), Aroni Commercials Ltd versus JCIT 362 ITR 403 (Bombay High Court) and Plus Paper food Pac Ltd versus ITO 374 ITR 485 (Bombay High Court). 9. In other alternative submission the learned AR submits that merely because there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order under section 143(3), it does not mean that assessing officer has not applied his mind. The learned AR for the asse…

Smt . Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2752/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 148

…cts, which is not permissible in law. 7. The Id CIT(A) grossly erred in ignoring the ground of appeal that the impugned reassessment order was passed in defiance of the judgement of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd Vs Dy.CIT (2014) 101 DTR 244 (Bom). 8. The Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that there was another fatal flaw in the impugned reassessment order, because the same was passed without disposal of the objections filed by the appellant against the second notice under section 148 of the Act, dt.28.3.2016, vide her letter, dt.17.12.2016. 9. All the aforesaid G…

Anil Khubchandani, Ulhasnagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhanil Khubchandani Acit Circle- 2 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, (Ulhasnagar) 501, Dev Corpra, Cadbury Junction, Kopat, Vs. Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Thane-400601. Kalyan-421301. Pan: Abipk4770G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…no order disposing the objection was passed by Assessing Officer nor it was served upon the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT [362 ITR 403 (Bom)], Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT [296 ITR 0090 (Bom)]. 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue further reiterated that though there is no proof on record about the service of order of disposing the objection. However, the objection of the assessee was disposed of…

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

…purely a change of opinion. The crux of the argument is in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom.) and CIT vs Kelvintor India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the arguments advanced from both sides, now question arises whether there was a “change of opinion” by the Assessing Officer and the validity of reopening of assessment…

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 132/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri N.K.Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Del/2018 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income E-104, Greater Kailash Enclave, Tax, Part-I, Circle-19(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. [Pan: Aaecp 6502F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Tripathy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita Tripathy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atc India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2620/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax -9(2) Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue Through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr Dr Versus M/S Atc India Tower Corporation, 404, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 Pan: Aajcs7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee Through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve For Order : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Dated 22Nd January 2016, Which Arise From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Dated 25Th March 2013 For Assessment Year

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER In the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -9(2) Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr DR Versus M/s ATC India Tower Corporation, 404, 4th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 PAN: AAJCS7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve for order : 02.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order unde…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat B. Bhanushali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2222/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…elaborately considered by the Ld.CIT(A) with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited [320 ITR 561] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT [362 ITR 403] and held that reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 is not valid and hence bad in law. What we see is a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer to assessee the short term capital gain shown by the assessee as business income of the assessee, beyond the period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year, where the asse…