Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v. Mayur Foundation

193 ITR 624High Court1992#4145 most cited

What is Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v. Mayur Foundation authority for?

The High Court's decision in Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom), established that the Assistant Commissioner has the power to reopen assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a failure to disclose material facts. This implies the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mayur Foundation, 193 ITR 624 (Bom), reinforces the principle that assessments can be reopened if crucial information was not presented by the assessee.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balasubramaniam · 269 ITR 1 · CIT v. Mayur Foundation · 193 ITR 624 · Section 147 · reassessment · failure to disclose · material facts · assistant commissioner · income tax act

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v. Mayur Foundation

Smt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Vs. I.T.O. 135, Main Sector, Ward-3, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan No. Abxpc 9134 H Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 10/01/2018 For The Ay. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Passed By Ld Ao As The Order Passed By Ld Ao Without Jurisdiction & Also Contrary To The Guideline Issued By The Hon’Ble Cbdt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 89,39,398/- In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain Particularly When Same Was Never Subject Matter Of Limited Scrutiny. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Made By Ld Ao Which He Could Not Have Made As The Jurisdiction Of The Ld Ao Was Limited.

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 50C

…at his own. An appellant before the tribunal can raise any new or additional point for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal — CIT V/s Kerala 5 ITA 110/Jodh/2018 Smt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary Vs ITO State Co.-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker.) Similarly as decided in case of CIT V/s Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj.) it has been held that "The proceedings before the tribunal are meant to assess the correct tax liability of an assessee. If that be so, it follows that assessment proceeding cannot be said to be complete, and is pending till the appeal is heard and disposed…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 6870/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. PAN: AACCN5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue by : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9th October, 2018 pa…

Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v. Mayur Foundation (193 ITR 624) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax