How many judgments cite Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT (224 ITR 560), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 131, Section 132.

Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT

224 ITR 560Supreme Court of India1997#4401 most cited

What is Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material, a nexus between that material and the belief, an application of the officer's mind to the material, and a tentative inference drawn from reasons.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Associated Stone Industries Kotah Ltd v CIT · 224 ITR 560 · SC · reassessment · section 147 · reason to believe · material facts · application of mind · escapement of income

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 131 Section 132 Section 263 Section 40A(3)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

company india business document interest

Judgments citing Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. In Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315 (SC) it has been held that what is required is a full…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Anil Bihani 5 Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. A partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. In Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315 (SC) it has been held that what is required is a full…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…il Corporation, 159 ITR 956 held that no case u/s 148 is made out when the facts were known all along with to the revenue while ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 9 -: making the original assessment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Stone Industry Ltd., 224 ITR 560 held that the assessee shall have to disclose only the primary facts. Considering the above legal propositions decided in the above cases, it is clear that AO is not justified in reopening the assessment on mere change of opinion. It is admitted fact that there is no material available with the AO to form his opinion that income has escaped asses…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi ACIT Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3rdKumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 PAN No. AACPM0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru…

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…ee relied upon the following decisions : 1. CIT v Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) 2. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) 3. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) 9. 3i Infotech Ltd v CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) 10. ACIT v ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd [2002] 348…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/1232/2009HC Delhi18 Oct 2012

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…Tribunal) is valid. He took support from ITO v. Saradbhai M. Lakhani 243 ITR 1 (SC), R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh 70 ITR 74 (SC), Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 224 ITR 560. 6. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, defended the Tribunal’s decision. It was argued that notice for reassessment was served after lapse of four years, and, therefore, the additional requirements stipulated in the First Proviso to Section 147 had to be met with; and that such requirements were not met. His contention was two-f…