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

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

assistant commissionersection 68section 144previous yearsection 143(2)section 148section 143section 14indiadocumentsection 143(3)nfac

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

M/S. Sez Indore Limited, Indore vs. The CIT-I, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 571/IND/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 351/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 350/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 349/IND/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 348/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 347/IND/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ITR 383 (SC) 2 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) 3 Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom) Commissioner of Income-tax 4 CIT v/s. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) 5 CIT v/s. Kerala State Co-Operative (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) Marketing Federation Ltd. 6 Balmukund Acharya Vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 [ Bombay ] 7 Mayank Poddar [HUF] vs Wealth Tax Officer 262 ITR 0633[ Calcutta] 31. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities and further added that the assessee has itself offered the income for tax on account of…

Rajesh Bhatia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 551/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 551/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, The ITO, Vs. A-84, Atre Path, Shyam Nagar, Ward 2(4), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPB8389K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)…

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

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

ITA 1375/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gnanaprakash, CIT
Section 194Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

…into facts apart from looking into the material already on record. Principles for admission of additional grounds have been laid down repeatedly by Courts and we may refer only to few of those decision in 229 ITR 383 (SC), 187 ITR 688(SC) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.FB) 193 ITR 624 (Ker.). Being unaware of the correct position in law and the same has not been brought to my knowledge by my counsels. We may add here that the very additional aground no.3 is only an alternative ground. Hence, it is prayed that the above ground may be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law”. 3. Facts apropos are that the assessee a…