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 367,181 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

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…a live link with the formation of the belief”. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Foramer France [2003 264 ITR 566]. Similar view has been expressed by our jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT [308 ITR 195] wherein it has been observed as under: - 9. It is clear from the observations made above that the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken a view that in a situation where according to the Assessing Officer he failed to apply his mind to the relevant material in making the assessment order, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and reope…

Bell Granito Ceramics Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2203/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…om), in the said case, it was held that since no new ITA No.778/Ahd/2016 Smt Nivvaniben D. Sandesara vs. ITO Asst.Year -2008- 09- 10 - material brought on record, reassessment on change of opinion of an officer not valid. (4) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), in this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. (5) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on the…

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2017[2009-140]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-140

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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), observing that as no new information/material was received by the A.O, 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 order, which is not p…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1794/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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), observing that as no new information/material was received by the A.O, 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 order, which is not p…

Kamlesh Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5730/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Smt. Kamlesh Goel Vs. The I.T.O 22, 2Nd Floor, Chitra Vihar Ward 59(3) Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aghpg 4212 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…passed rejecting the objections and which is required by the law laid down in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 and Asian Paints Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reported in (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom). The petitioner specifically invited the attention of the assessing officer to the directions in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and to the effect that if the assessing officer does not accept the objections to the reopening of the assessment or the reasons recorded, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…oncept of 'change of opinion' is removed, then, in the garb of reassessment, review would take place. Similar view has been taken in the following judgments: - CIT -vs.- Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB) Asian Paints Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) DCIT -vs.- Intelnet Global Services (P.) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 177 (Mum) (ITAT) Without prejudice to the above, it is to be noted that in response to the reason provided for re- opening the assessment, the assessee vide letter dated 12-10-2012 [Refer PB Pg. 23-33] objected to the reasons for reopening. The AO without disposing off the…

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

…re change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 40 Ms. Seema Dilip vora 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to Asian Paints ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.), Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 447 (SC). The observations of the Supreme Court are a protection against the abuse of power; they also protect the Revenue which can, in the light of subsequent coming into light of facts or law, reopen the assessment. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, since, there was no new tangible mate…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 3Dplm Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is also hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2789/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2789/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Floor, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- 400020. 400708. Co. No.296/Mum/2017 (Ita. No. 2789/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Dcit-14(3)(1)-Mumbai Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th Room No.455, Aayakar Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Bhavan Maharashi Karve Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- Marg, Mumbai-400020. 400708. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1421B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri K. Ved (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed

For Appellant: Shri K. Ved (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148

…various courts in the case of CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC), CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC), Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 241 ITR 672 (Mad), Bhavesh Developers Vs. AO, 329 ITR 249 (Bom), Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT 308 ITR 195, (Bom) and also various other judgements cited by the appellant, the AO was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the same is quashed. The appellant’s ground of appeal on this issue is allowed. Consequently, the merits of ground nos. 2, 4 & 5 are not being adjudicated.” 7. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we…

Rusuan Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 58/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Rusan Pharma Ltd. Acit Circle 9(3) 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 58-D, Government Industrial Estate, Charkop, Kandivali M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. (W), Mumbai-67. Vs. Pan: Aabcr3179H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rusan Pharma Ltd. ACIT Circle 9(3) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 58-D, Government Industrial Estate, Charkop, Kandivali M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. (W), Mumbai-67. Vs. PAN: AABCR3179H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.P. Mehta (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR) Date of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed ag…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in (2010) 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to Asian Paints ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.), Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 447 (SC). The observations of the Supreme Court are a protection against the abuse of power; they also protect the Revenue which can, in the light of subsequent coming into light of facts or law, reopen the assessment. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, now, we shall examine the facts of t…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…e decided that in the absence of tangible material on record, notice u/s 148 cannot be given even within 4 years from the end of the relevant asst.years. For this proposition, he relied on the following cases: 1. Kelvinator, 320 ITR1 560 (SC) 2. Asian Paints, 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) 3. Western Outdoor, 286 ITR 620 (Bom.) 4. Bapalal & Sons, 289 ITR 37 (Chennai) 18.3 On Merits, Ld. AR submitted that the list of commission payments indicated at page 2 of assessment order, the assesse paid commission to 14 members. Out of them 4 members were never examined and the payments to them was accepted as genuine. He submitted th…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. CIT (OSD), Range-10, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…e decided that in the absence of tangible material on record, notice u/s 148 cannot be given even within 4 years from the end of the relevant asst.years. For this proposition, he relied on the following cases: 1. Kelvinator, 320 ITR1 560 (SC) 2. Asian Paints, 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) 3. Western Outdoor, 286 ITR 620 (Bom.) 4. Bapalal & Sons, 289 ITR 37 (Chennai) 18.3 On Merits, Ld. AR submitted that the list of commission payments indicated at page 2 of assessment order, the assesse paid commission to 14 members. Out of them 4 members were never examined and the payments to them was accepted as genuine. He submitted th…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…e decided that in the absence of tangible material on record, notice u/s 148 cannot be given even within 4 years from the end of the relevant asst.years. For this proposition, he relied on the following cases: 1. Kelvinator, 320 ITR1 560 (SC) 2. Asian Paints, 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) 3. Western Outdoor, 286 ITR 620 (Bom.) 4. Bapalal & Sons, 289 ITR 37 (Chennai) 18.3 On Merits, Ld. AR submitted that the list of commission payments indicated at page 2 of assessment order, the assesse paid commission to 14 members. Out of them 4 members were never examined and the payments to them was accepted as genuine. He submitted th…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…e decided that in the absence of tangible material on record, notice u/s 148 cannot be given even within 4 years from the end of the relevant asst.years. For this proposition, he relied on the following cases: 1. Kelvinator, 320 ITR1 560 (SC) 2. Asian Paints, 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) 3. Western Outdoor, 286 ITR 620 (Bom.) 4. Bapalal & Sons, 289 ITR 37 (Chennai) 18.3 On Merits, Ld. AR submitted that the list of commission payments indicated at page 2 of assessment order, the assesse paid commission to 14 members. Out of them 4 members were never examined and the payments to them was accepted as genuine. He submitted th…

Ananda Paul, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

…ection 147." (3) Asteroids Trading & Investment P. Ltd. vs DClT (2009) 308 lTR 190 (Bom), in the said case, it was held that since no new material brought on record, reassessment on change of opinion of officer not valid. (4) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), in this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. (5) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through the reasons recorded for re-opening of the original assessment order passed by the A.O. The reasons recorded by t…

Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 660/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through the reasons recorded for re-opening of the original assessment order passed by the A.O. The reasons recorded by t…

Amolika Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -9(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 505/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Sh. M. C. Omi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…61 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) iv) 11 I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 Amolika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. CartiniIndia Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) v) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC). Furthermore, we observe that the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere speaks that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the AY 2007- 08. Accordingly, issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever…

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

ITA 2277/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S. Dehiya-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एफ मुंबई एफ एफ ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एफ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “F”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2277/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" DCIT-14(…

M/S. Pradnya Sudhir Thakur, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Kolhapur …. Vs. Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist: Kolhapur Pan: Aawpm3998H आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1326/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist: Kolhapur …. Pan: Aawpm3998H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 148

…should not proceed with assessment for 4 weeks thereafter. Thus four weeks time was the minimum reasonable period required for reassessment after hearing the assessee. Reference can be made to decision of Hon. Bombay High Court in Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT 296 ITR 96 (Bom.), Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom) (HC). 4. When original order was passed by ACIT in our opinion change of jurisdiction case to ITO 1(4) is unauthorized as the income assessed was more than Rs.10 Lakhs and as per delegation of authority such case and should have found continued jurisdiction with ACIT. 5. Without preju…