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

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofinadequate enquirysection 263(1)revision under section 263mere change of opinionsection 56(2)(x)revision u/s 263assessment order erroneouslack of enquirymalabar industrialchange of opinionsection 292b

Judgments citing Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT

Gautamchand Kanuga (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4260/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga, Dcit, House No.439, Flat No.1, Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Sumita Building, Vs. Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Wayale Nagar, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Pan: Abgpk 2083A Kalyan (W) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga Dcit, (Huf), Bhiwandi Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, House No.439, Flat No.1, Vs. Sumita Building, Wayale Nagar, Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Khadakpada, Bhiwandi Kalyan (W) Pan: Abgpk 2083A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Wanare, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d by the assessee, then in such a case the AO should not proceed further in the matter for a period of 4 weeks. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 and Aroni Commercials Ltd. 362 ITR 403. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. It is the say of the Ld. DR that the assessment was reopened on the basis of tangible material evidence in the form of report received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai and therefore it cannot be said that there is no application of mind.…

Gautamchand Kanuga, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga, Dcit, House No.439, Flat No.1, Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Sumita Building, Vs. Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Wayale Nagar, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Pan: Abgpk 2083A Kalyan (W) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga Dcit, (Huf), Bhiwandi Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, House No.439, Flat No.1, Vs. Sumita Building, Wayale Nagar, Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Khadakpada, Bhiwandi Kalyan (W) Pan: Abgpk 2083A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Wanare, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d by the assessee, then in such a case the AO should not proceed further in the matter for a period of 4 weeks. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 and Aroni Commercials Ltd. 362 ITR 403. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. It is the say of the Ld. DR that the assessment was reopened on the basis of tangible material evidence in the form of report received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai and therefore it cannot be said that there is no application of mind.…

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5359/MUM/2011[200-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri L K Dehiya
Section 1Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 34A

…lowing the claim of deduction u/s 10B which is not permissible in law as it amounts to “change of opinion”. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd vs ACIT, reported in [2014] 362 ITR 403 and Asteroids Trading and Investments Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, reported in [2009] 308 ITR 190 (Bom). In these decisions, he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that, if no new material is brought on record then reopening cannot be done on mere change of opinion. The reasons recorded must be based on tangible material and not on the mate…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी च"ला नागे"" "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012) Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, Vs Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6 (1), Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN:AABCS 2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appella…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी च"ला नागे"" "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012) Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, Vs Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6 (1), Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN:AABCS 2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appella…