Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

308 ITR 195High Court2009#551 most cited

What is Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment when all material facts were already before the AO during the original assessment, even if the AO failed to apply their mind at that time. Such an action constitutes an impermissible review of a concluded assessment rather than a reassessment based on fresh tangible material.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 148 · Section 147 · reopening of assessment · mere change of opinion · full and true disclosure · tangible material · escapement of income · concluded assessment · original assessment facts

Also reported as

231 CTR 233

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 151Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

perquisite valuekelvinatormere change of opinionfresh tangible materialfull and true disclosurechange of opinionmaterial facts necessary for assessmenttangible materialreason to believelive linkreopening of assessmentescapement of income

Judgments citing Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

…ing Officer at the time of original assessment proceedings and therefore to verify the same facts on the basis of the same documents amount to change of opinion. 10. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT [308 ITR 195] had the occasion to consider the similar situation and held as under: - “7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have also gone through the judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 8. In the order rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner to the notice under s. 148,…

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ible material/facts coming to the notice of the AO subsequent to the completion of the original assessment, forming opinion about escapement of income, amounts to change of opinion which is legally not permissible. 19. In the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs DCIT 308 ITR 195, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that where no new material has come on record or no new information has been received between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of formation opinion by the AO, it is merely a fresh application of mind by the same AO to the same set of facts and the same amounts to reopening…

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…ed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and further on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.). The ld. counsel in this respect has placed reliance upon the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/90/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 vide order dated 15.11.2022. Even the ld. counsel for the assessee on merits has contended that no defect has been pointed out by the I.T.A. Nos…

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…ed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and further on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.). The ld. counsel in this respect has placed reliance upon the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/90/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 vide order dated 15.11.2022. Even the ld. counsel for the assessee on merits has contended that no defect has been pointed out by the I.T.A. Nos…

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1169/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…ed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and further on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.). The ld. counsel in this respect has placed reliance upon the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/90/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 vide order dated 15.11.2022. Even the ld. counsel for the assessee on merits has contended that no defect has been pointed out by the I.T.A. Nos…

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1168/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…ed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and further on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.). The ld. counsel in this respect has placed reliance upon the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/90/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 vide order dated 15.11.2022. Even the ld. counsel for the assessee on merits has contended that no defect has been pointed out by the I.T.A. Nos…

The Income Tax Officer Ward, 2, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, Jashpur (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 223/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(4)Section 69

…igh Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) referred to above, that under s. 147 assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion." We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), had observed that as the A.O received no new information/material, therefore, the fresh application of mind by the A.O to the same set of facts and material which were available on record at the time of framing of the assessment but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered would tantamount to review of the order, which is not pe…

Nalini Parwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 249/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 249/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalini Parwani C/O. G.K Automobiles P. Ltd. Opp. Kabir Nagar, Gate No.2. Ring Road-2, Sondongri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aeqpp5635N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 57

…High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) referred to above, that under s. 147 assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion." I further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), had observed that as the A.O received no new information/material, therefore, the fresh application of mind by the A.O to the same set of facts and material which were available on record at the time of framing of the assessment but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered would tantamount to review of the order, which is not pe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 73/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri, Sakshi Gopal Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…facts already available on record before the A.O. while framing the original assessment is not permissible u/s 147 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom). The Hon’ble High Court, by drawing support from the landmark judgment of the “Full bench” of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) [which thereafter had been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] had observed that the department…

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1984/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1984/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2014-15] Jaguar and Company Pvt Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T C – 20, SMA, Co-op Industrial Estate Circle - 19 G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACJ 2324 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Department By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred…

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…mann.com 301 7. ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., 348 ITR 299 (SC) 8. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 9. Rose Serviced Apartments (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del.) 10. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [20091 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 11. Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT, [20161 384 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, [2015] 371 IT 81 (Del.) 13. CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Rubix Trading (P) Ltd., [2019] 108 taxmann.com 177 (SC) 14. New Delhi Television Ltd.Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2020] 424 ITR 607(SC) 15. M/s. Anand Developers Vs. ACIT & Anr…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…no 'new' tangible material, reopening is bad-in-law for which he relied upon following decisions: (i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is based upon borrowed satisfaction and reopening for examining an…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…no 'new' tangible material, reopening is bad-in-law for which he relied upon following decisions: (i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is based upon borrowed satisfaction and reopening for examining an…

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sentia Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…& Investment P. Ltd. vs DCIT, (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (193) a. Asteroids Trading & Investment P. Ltd. vs DCIT, (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (193) Asteroids Trading & Investment P. Ltd. vs DCIT, (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (193) b. Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) (198) b. Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) (198) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) c. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) c. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. Astt. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) (577) d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. Astt. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) (577) d. Aven…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…stigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wh…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…stigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wh…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…stigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wh…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…stigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) wh…

DCIT Khandwa, Khandwa vs. M/S Rajrajeshwar Cotton Corporation, Sendhwa

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

ITA 573/IND/2019[2011`-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…hange of opinion of officer not valid. Page 8 of 17 M/s Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Corporation ITA No.573/Ind/2019 & CO 9/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2011-12 a. Asteroids Trading & Investment P Ltd vs DeIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Born) b. Asian Paints Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Born) (198) c. ICICI Life Insurance Co Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 471 [Born] d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom)(577) e. Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93(Bom)(HC) f. Aryan Arcade Ltd vs Den (2017) 4.14 During the assessment proceedings, if new facts, material or information comes to the knowledge of the AO,…

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

ITA 82/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) referred to above, that under s. 147 assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion." We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) had observed, that as no new information /material was received by the A.O, therefore, the fresh application of mind by him to the same set of facts and material which were available on record at the time of framing of the assessment, but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered would tantamount to review of order which is not pe…