Arvind Mills Ltd. v. ACWT

270 ITR 469High Court2004#7535 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Arvind Mills Ltd. v. ACWT

ACIT, CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY vs. MONDAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1896/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 43C

…t has to be quashed for the reason of non-disposal of objections for the re-opening of assessment by the Assessing Officer. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Gujarat High Court in the case Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth 2004 270 ITR 469 Guj and in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, W.P. No. 2502 of 2015; judgment dated 27/01/2016 (Bom. H.C) 3.1. Consistent with the view taken therein, I quash the assessment as bad in law.” 6. In view of the above decisions, I find that the AO is mandated to decide the objection to the notice under sec. 148 of the Act and supp…

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 304/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 148Section 151

…he Assessing Officer and in case of failure before the Assessing Officer; Page 12 of 17 (ii) challenging the speaking order of the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act." 6.2 Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT [2004] 270 ITR 469 (Guj) while following the aforesaid decision concluded that once the Supreme Court stated that the AO was bound to dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order, it was not open to the authorities to contend that in the absence of any provision in the Act, the authorities could not have passed a speaking order. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

THE ITO, WARD-7(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR GOYAL, SURAT

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

ITA 1487/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…information fully and truly at the time of filing the return of income. The reopening is clearly based on the change of opinion. To support his submissions he relied on the decisions of Gujarat High Court in P.C Patel & Co (379 ITR 151 Guj) and Arvind Mills ( 270 ITR 469 Guj) and decisions of Tribunal in ITO Vs Smt Gurinder Kaur ( 2006) ITD 189/105 TTJ 198 and ACIT Vs Raj Kumar Jain [IT(SS) A No. 28/Del/2012] dated 08.07.2015. 9. In rejoinder submissions the Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee never raised objections against the reopening during the reassessment before the assessing officer. The…

SHRI GIRRAJ PRASAD GILARA HUF,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 has quashed the assessment where the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of considering the objections. (v) A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (No.2), (2004) 270 ITR 469 after considering the decision of this Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) held in the majority opinion as under :- “..........What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN’s case (2003) 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.’…

BIMAL KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1005/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Bimal Kumar Singh….........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Arxps 5898 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nt has to be quashed for the reason of non-disposal of objections for the re-opening of assessment by the Assessing Officer. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Gujarat High Court in the case Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth2004 270 ITR 469 Guj and in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT; W.P. No. 2502 of 2015; judgment dt. 27/01/2016 (Bom. H.C.). 3.1. Consistent with the view taken therein, I quash the assessment as bad in law. 4. Even otherwise, I find that there is no whisper in the reasons recorded that the assessee has failed to truly and fully disclose all mat…

SANKET M DHAROD, HYD,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 873/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2004-05 Sanket M. Dharod, Hyderabad Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abkpd5807 B

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Gopala Krishna

Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250

…eriod and passing a reassessment order without dealing with the objections results in gross harassment to the assessee which the Pr. CIT should note and take remedial action. 5.2 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. ACWT (2004) 270 ITR 469 (Guj.) held that the AO should pass a specific order disposing off objections. Sanket M. Dharod 5.3 In the case of Veer Verdhman Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the ITAT, Delhi in order dated 27/11/2007 held that non- disposal of objections raised makes reassessment invalid. They followed the following decisions: i. ITO Vs. ML Creations (I…

ANIS AHMED MIYA MOHAMMED KAPADIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

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

ITA 1397/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1397/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2008-09 Anis Ahmed Miya Mohammed Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapadia, Ward-3(3)(1), 11/900, Sindhiwad,Chowk Bazar, Surat. Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Adtpk 8547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.N. Vepari, C.A ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. R.Kavitha, Sr. D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2018 आदेश/Order Perc.M.Garg: This Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.03.2016 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09 Passed In The First Appeal No.Cas/3/Trfd/V/118/2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Consequently Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act By Adjudicating The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Vepari, C.A ""For Respondent: Mrs. R.Kavitha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…. At this juncture, we find it profitable to take respectful cognizance of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra), which has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. V. ACIT 270 ITR 469 (Guj) wherein their lordships speaking for the jurisdictional High Court held that the AO has not passed a speaking order in disposing the assessee’s objections against the notice u/s. 148 of the Act before proceeding with the 4 ITA No.1397/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) ShriAnis Ahmed Miya Mohammed Kapadia reassessment proceedings, hence, the subs…

SOUMYA RANJAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…t been made by the Assessing Officer in the present case, we hold the impugned assessment order dated 03.10.2008 as not valid and the same is held as void ab initio.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs.ACWT (2004) 270 ITR 469 (Guj) has held as under :- “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft India Ltd. (supra) provides the challenge to the reassessment notice in two stages, i.e. (i) raising preliminary objections before the AO and in case of failure before the AO; (ii) challenging the speaking order of the AO u/s.148 of the Act. The position in law is…

SOUMYA RANJAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

M/S. VEER VARDHMAN FINANCE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2042/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ld. ClT(A) by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. 259 ITR 19 (SC) and further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT (2004) 270 ITR 469 (Guj.) and has rightly observed that AO has not passed the speaking order in disposing of the assessee's objections against the notice uls. 148 of the I. T. Act, before proceeding with the assessment, hence, he held that the subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed….………” 6.2 On going through the aforesaid decision…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1220/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ctions before the Assessing Officer and in case of failure before the Assessing Officer; (ii) challenging the speaking order of the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act." 6.2 Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT [2004] 270 ITR 469 (Guj) while following the aforesaid decision concluded that once the Supreme Court stated that the AO was bound to dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order, it was not open to the authorities to contend that in the absence of any provision in the Act, the authorities could not have passed a speaking order. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

ITO, RISHIKESH vs. M/S. M.L. CREATIONS, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4009/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Gupta, CA & Sh. P.SFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…d. CIT(A) by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. 259 ITR 19 (SC) and further following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT (2004) 270 ITR 469 (Guj.) and has rightly observed that AO has not passed the speaking order in disposing of the assessee’s objections against the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, before proceeding with the assessment, hence, he held that the subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed. I also find that Ld. CIT(A) also observed that…

SRI. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1559/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years." 23. A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (No.2), (2004) 270 ITR 469 after considering the decision of this Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) held in the majority opinion as under :- ".......What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN case (2003) 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case (…

ABHAYAM TRADING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

…before the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Gujarat High Court, after considering the case laws on the subject, has observed as follows:- “23. A Division Bench of this court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Asst. CWT (No. 2) [2004] 270 ITR 469 (Guj), after considering the decision of this court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 48 (Guj), held in the majority opinion as under (page 474 of 270 ITR) : " 'What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the apex court in Calcut…

ABHAYAM TRADING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147