Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO

403 ITR 196High Court2018#20898 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10(38)Section 115JB Section 151 Section 151(1)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

change of opinion tangible material reopening of assessment section 148 section 147 section 14 section 143(3)nfac total income business document

Judgments citing Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

…vs. Bhagwati Land Developers (P.) Ltd., 261 ITR 658 (Cal). (ii) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai R. Prajapati, 398 ITR 170 (Guj). (iii) PCIT vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd., 175 DTR 433 (Bom). (iv) PCIT vs. Sun Corporation, 419 ITR 414 (Guj). (v) Dempo Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 403 ITR 196 (Bom). (vi) Purity Tech Textile vs. ACIT, 325 ITR 459 (Bom). (vii) Royal Infrastructure vs. DCIT, 425 ITR 491 (Guj). (viii) BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT, 421 ITR 59 (Delhi). 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the s…

ECGC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. ECGC Limited Vs. ACIT 3(1)(2) CTS No.393, 393/1 to 45 Mumbai M.V. Road, Andheri East Room No.608, Mumbai- 400 069 6th Floor Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACE0296K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing 27/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 22/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 18/12/2023 passed by…

V.K.NANAVATY SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…) held that AO has power to re-open, provided he has tangible material to form the belief that the income had escaped assessment [refer decision in (i) Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom) (HC) and (ii) Dempo Brothers Pvt. Ltd v ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom) (HC)]. Another aspect one has to keep in mind is that if an AO during the earlier assessment has already queried about the issue, which the present AO wishes to re-open, he may refrain from doing so, because 5 A.Y. 2012-13 V. K. Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. AO doesn’t have the power to review or it can be termed as change of…

SMT. HARSHIDABEN M. POBARU,,JAMNAGAR. vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , JAMNAGAR.

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

ITA 371/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Smt. Harshidaben M. Pobaru, Circle-1, Vs. “Gokul’’, Park Colony, Jamnagar. Jamnagar-361008. Pan: Acmpp9140J

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…f that the income had escaped assessment and therefore, reopening of assessment under section 147 was not valid. We rely upon following judicial precedents a. Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) b. Dempo Brothers Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom) (HC) c. Golden Tobacco Limited v. DCI [2017] 48 ITR (T) 132(Mum.)(Trib.) d. DIT v. Rolls Royal Industries Power India Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 547 (Delhi)(HC) e. ACIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 123 (Mum.) (Trib.) f. Mahandi Coalfileds Ltd ITA No. 300/CTK/2014 (Page no. 4 to 13 PB1) g. Yasodaben Soni ITA No. 359/AHD/2016 (Page No. 14…