Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tember, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) viii) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC) ix) Asteriods Trading & Investment P. Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom HC) x) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Orient Craft Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) 8 M/s. Lupin Limited xi) M/s. GTL Limited vs ACIT, ITA No. 6971/Mum/2010 (Mum Trib) dated 2nd January, 2015 xii) Prashant Joshi vs Income Tax Officer & Anr, (2010) (Bom HC) 324 ITR 15…

Luminant Investments Ltd ( Formelry Known As Luminant Investments P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Luminant Investments Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Radha Bhavan, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-40, 121, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 400 023 Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacl 0834 A .. Appellant Respondent

…ds “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. Further this is again reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Asteroid Trading and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom.) and Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.), which are impliedly approved, while that of the Allahabad High Court in EMA India 30 DTR (All) 82 (which had dissented from the Full Bench judgment in Kelvinator) is impliedly overruled. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) held that the fact that there is no discussion in the assessmen…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

…is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless 43 Jayant Manilal Gandhy (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 mate…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

…be open for the Assessing Officer to invoke Sec. 148 and reopen the assessment. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 308 ITR 190; Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, 308 ITR 195; Aventis Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT, 323 ITR 570 and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. Ramapriya 5 M/s Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. Raghavan, ACIT, 371 ITR 225. In addition, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that under the OTS scheme framed by the RBI assessee was entitled to certain benefits and PNB agreed to…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…rtini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009)314 ITR 275 (Bom) 4. IPCA Labs Ltd., (2002) 251 ITR 416 (Bom) 5. Asteroids Trading and Investments Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom), 6. Siemens Information Systems Ltd., (2008)295 ITR 333 (Bom) and 7. Asian Paints Ltd., (2009)308 ITR 195 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2013 12 8. Delhi High Court full Bench in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2002) 256 ITR 1 (del) 9. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., (1978)114 ITR 404 (AP) 10. Rallis India Ltd, (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) Based upon the above discussions and case laws, the learned CIT(A) observed that it is clear that if the issue has already bee…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…ntended that the original assessment order granting depreciation on windmill was correct and the assessee company challenged the reopening as bad in law and illegal. The assessee company further relied on the following decisions:- i) Asian Paints Ltd v. DCIT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) ii) Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) iii) Cartini India Limited v. ACIT 314 ITR 275 Bom) iv) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) v) Rallies India Limited v. ACIT 232 CTR 143 (Bom) vi) Mitsui Marubheni Corpn v. DCIT 298 ITR (AT) 283 vii) IPCA Laqboratories Limited v. Jagdanand Meena DCIT, 251 ITR…

Gas & Power Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

…ngly allowed and that issue not discussed in assessment order is not material. It was held that the reopening is bad in law and not permissible. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Vs DCIT and Another (308 ITR 195), Counsel submits that it has been held that mere change of opinion of the AO is not a ground for reassessment. Lastly, he places reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Motilal R. Todi Vs ACIT in ITA No. 2910/M/2013 dated 22.9.2015 and submits that when there is no tangible material, reopening of assessment is bad in law. 6.…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

…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 28 Mr. R.P. Suvarna aforesaid discussion, since, there was no…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…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…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…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…

J.V Gokal Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) J.V. Gokal Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITO 1(2)(1) 1st Floor, Sadhana House, बनाम/ 570 P.B. Marg, Behind Mahindra Vs. Towers, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACJ 8885B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri. Rajesh Shah अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. Naveen Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03/09/2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06/01/2016 Date of Pronoun…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Paton Fashions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

…en the assessment as held clearly in all the cases referred to above particularly that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Abhushan Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 166 (Del) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. ClT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) and Rallis India Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 54 (Bom) - hence, the notice issued u/s148 of the IT. Act is hereby quashed and the reassessment framed consequent to issue of this notice is annulled. Further, I agree to the proposition that the gross profit rate computed at the time of survey on the basis of & ITA No.6967/12 partial and random physic…

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Paton Fashions P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

…en the assessment as held clearly in all the cases referred to above particularly that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Abhushan Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 166 (Del) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. ClT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) and Rallis India Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 54 (Bom) - hence, the notice issued u/s148 of the IT. Act is hereby quashed and the reassessment framed consequent to issue of this notice is annulled. Further, I agree to the proposition that the gross profit rate computed at the time of survey on the basis of & ITA No.6967/12 partial and random physic…

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Paton Fashions P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

…en the assessment as held clearly in all the cases referred to above particularly that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Abhushan Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 166 (Del) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. ClT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) and Rallis India Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 54 (Bom) - hence, the notice issued u/s148 of the IT. Act is hereby quashed and the reassessment framed consequent to issue of this notice is annulled. Further, I agree to the proposition that the gross profit rate computed at the time of survey on the basis of & ITA No.6967/12 partial and random physic…

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

…t in respect of both the issues, there was no tangible material before the AO other than the material already examined in the proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd., 308 ITR 195, Idea Cellular Ltd., 301 ITR 407 and Cartini India Ltd., 314 ITR 275. 9. We have considered rival contentions and deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order and cited by ld. AR before us in the context of factual matrix of the case. From the record we found that the notice u/s 148 has been i…