How many judgments cite Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT?

175 judgments on BharatTax cite Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 133A, Section 142(1).

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 367,164 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 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

perquisite value kelvinator mere change of opinion fresh tangible material full and true disclosure change of opinion material facts necessary for assessment tangible material reason to believe live link reopening of assessment escapement of income

Judgments citing Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1296/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…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…tion 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 31 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 mat…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…No.4815/Mum/2016 mind of AO to the issue raised, hence merely due to change of opinion, assessment cannot be reopened. /same view is also held in Asteroids Trading and Investments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT(2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom.)(HC), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT(2009) 308 ITR 195(Bom)(HC). 3.5 It is clear from the above decisions that AO had reopened the assessment merely due to change of opinion than any new tangible material available. Hence reopening of assessment without any tangible material and merely due to change of opinion is not permissible in law and reopening of assessment is invalid. 3.6 Further on the merits…

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6847/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank Of Acit-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaace2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ord while making the assessment order, was inadvertently excluded from consideration, was held to be a re-opening merely on change of opinion and not valid. We refer here to the decision in Balkrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO 321 ITR 519; Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT 308 ITR 195; D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. v. ACIT 324 ITR 234; Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. ACIT 329 ITR 237. To sum up, even under the amended law, in all cases, there must exist reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and a mere change of opinion on the same facts and law does not justify a reassessment. For a reassessment proceeding initiated after four yea…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…n 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, since, there was no new tangible mat…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Total Lubricants India Ltd ( Now Known As Total Oil India P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA o

ITA 7021/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…The following case laws are also relied upon by the Ld.AR:- i. Motital Todi vs ACIT ITA No.2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) ii. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii.ICICI Hom Finance Co. Ltd vs ACIT (210 Taxman 47 (Bom) iv. Asian Paints Ltd vs DCIT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) v. Cartini India Ltd vs ACIT 179 Taxman 157 (Bom) vi. DSJ Communication Ltd vs DCIT 222 Taxman 129 (Bom) 5. Insofar as addition made by the AO towards provision for energy expenses, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has made provision for energy expenses which is incurred mainly for promoting the new logo of the assessee as the ass…

M/S Sapna Investments, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2203/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…on 147 of the act, cannot be invoked. i) Rallies India Ltd Vs. ACIT & Another (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) ii) CIT Vs. (i) Kelvinator of India Ltd (ii) Eicher Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). iii) Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom) iv) CIT Vs. Younus Kunju (1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala) 11. The appellant craves permission to add, delete or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” Page 3 of 4 3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that in the present case, proviso to section 147 is applicable because assessment order was earlier framed by AO u/s. 143(3) on 30.08.20…

M/S Paramount Properties & Estate Developments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reason of the omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. He could not, thereafter, take recourse to section 147(a) to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight. • Asian Paints Ltd. Vs Dy.CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) In this case, in the order rejecting the objections filed by the assessee to the notice under section 148, the AO had observed "verification of the assessment record reveals that the said details were called for but inadvertently the same were not taken into account while framing the assessment and M/s. Paramount Properties & Estate Develop…

G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir-Xx, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…Y.2007-08 7 (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…

M/S Way 2 Wealth Brokers (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 758/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. B.R Ramesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(11)Section 32

…stock exchange memberships. Moreover, the assessee has relied upon the following case laws : i) Rallies India Ltd v. ACIT[(2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd & Eicher Ltd [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] iii) Asian Paints Ltd v. DCIT [(2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom); and iv) CIT v. Younus Kunju [(1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala)] On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the depreciation is required to be allowed on the WDV of these stock exchange membership cards. It was submitted that the rules and regulations dealing with BGSE and NSE as that of BGSE card, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Samsung Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 19/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. M/S. Samsung Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Room No. 306, C.R. Building, 1095, Sector A, Pocket - A, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Pan : Aabcs5957L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 68

…ed under section 2(24)(iv). The difference between written down value of buses and their fair market value determined by department, could be treated as benefit to assessees under section 2(24)(iv).] 5. Sudha Burman Vs CIT f20071 160 Taxman 148 (Delhi)/r20081 296 ITR 96 (Delhi)/r20071 209 CTR 278 (Delhi) Wife of managing director of company travelled with the managing director to foreign countries. Expenses of journey of wife of the managing director was borne by the company. There was no evidence that travel was for business purposes of the company. It was held that the amount spent by the company on 9 ITA No. 1…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…s Alagendran Finance Ltd (2007) 162 Taxman 465 (SC) v. Asteroids Trading & Investment P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (No new material brought on records - Re-assemment on change of opinion of officer not valid) vi. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) vii. Aventis Pharma Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) viii. Bhavesh Developers vs. AO [2010] 188 TAXMAN 123 (Bom) ix. It is well settled that when the assessee had produced all the material and relevant facts and therefore the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained:. • Praful Chunilal Patel vs. M.J. Makwana, ACIT (1999) 236 ITR…

M/S Waycon Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

…n [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) 03. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Allied Strips Ltd. vs.ACIT, CC15, WP(C) 2526/2015 04. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd.vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another reported in [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 05. The Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. E.I.H Ltd., ITANo.1742/Kol/2008 6. In response to this, the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records including the paper book-I and II submitted by the assessee is as under: 5…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Shri Nandlal B Maloo, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 311/NAG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rs. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Asian 12 Shri Nandlal B. Maloo Paints Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) and 234 Taxman 432. But the factual position of the present case is quite different from the law settled in the above said authorities. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, hence, the cross objection on this ground of the assessee i…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…ion 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, since, there was no new tangible materia…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to hold that unless there are tangible material coming to the possession of the AO to show that income has escaped assessment, the assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion. In case of Asian Paints 308 ITR 195 the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that when an assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Act it is to be presumed that the AO has completed such assessment after taking into consideration all facts and materials on record. Therefore, on the very same set of facts and circumstances assessment cannot be reopened as it will amount…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…judicial pronouncements, which are on the similar propositions:- • Aventis Ph arm a Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) • CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. ( 348 ITR 485)(Delhi) • Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) • Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) • CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) • Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.) • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT 366 ITR 115(Delhi) • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536(Delhi) • Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. J. P. Janjid 5 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., (2014) 225 Taxman 81(Mag.) (Bom) 9.…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…& Investment P. Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 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. M/s. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. • 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. • 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…