Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

382 ITR 333High Court2016#1272 most cited

What is Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment orders under Section 147/148 are without jurisdiction and invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment through a speaking order, as mandated by the GKN Driveshafts procedure.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bayer Material Science v. DCIT · 382 ITR 333 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · GKN Driveshafts · objections to reopening · speaking order · without jurisdiction · procedural compliance · notice under Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153(2)live linkreopening of assessmentsection 254notice under section 148reason to believespeaking orderescapement of incomedraft assessment orderreassessment proceedingscross objectioncommissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 592/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.592 & 593/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2009–10 & 2010–11) Aarti Industries Ltd. 71, 2nd Floor, Udyog Kshetra Mulund Goregaon Link Road ……………. Appellant Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080 PAN – AABCA2787L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(1)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing – 15.04.2019 Date of Order – 29.05.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeals have been file…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) v. M/s. Re n Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, SVP Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAKCS 8934 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Birju S. Shah Department by : Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing : 09.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the R…

Multiple Images, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 958/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…relying upon the decision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Others (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Ld. A.R. further relied on the 4 M/s. Multiple Images decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) and submitted before the Bench that the reassessment proceedings were being without jurisdiction and should be quashed. 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below and submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened by the AO after following the due process laid down under the Act and therefore the fi…

Sanket M Dharod, Hyd, R.R.Dist vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 873/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2004-05 Sanket M. Dharod, Hyderabad Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abkpd5807 B

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Gopala Krishna
Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250

…ven thereafter. Thus, the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 259 ITR 9, has not been followed. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material 5.1 Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC) held that non-disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reasons towards the end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with the objections results in gross harassment to the assessee which the Pr. CIT should note and take remedial action. 5.2 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court i…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…pen to him to pass an assessment order. This was not done by the AO. Therefore, the assessment order passed under the Act, deserves to be quashed. 22. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom), has held as under :- “The passing of the draft assessment order without having disposed of the objections filed by the assessee to the reasons recorded in support of the notice was in defiance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, the draft assessment order was not sustainable be…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…pen to him to pass an assessment order. This was not done by the AO. Therefore, the assessment order passed under the Act, deserves to be quashed. 22. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom), has held as under :- “The passing of the draft assessment order without having disposed of the objections filed by the assessee to the reasons recorded in support of the notice was in defiance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, the draft assessment order was not sustainable be…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3701/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3701/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Hindustan Unilever Limited Dy.Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Hindustan Tax –Range 1(1), Mumbai. बनाम/ Lever Ltd) Unilever House, B D Sawant Marg, Vs. Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400099 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Pan: Aaach1004N अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms.Jasmine Asmadwala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms.Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)— 2, Mumbai, Dated 22.3.2016 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Appellant, Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The "C!T(A)"] Dated March 22, 2016, Places For Your Consideration The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms.Jasmine AsmadwalaFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “एफ”, , , , मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “F” MUMBAI सव"ी सव"ी सि"जीत डे सव"ी सव"ी सि"जीत डे सि"जीत डे, , , , "याियक सि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राजेश कुमार एवं राजेश कुमार राजेश कुमार, लेखा राजेश कुमार लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3701/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…tax has escaped assessment by reason for the failure on the part of the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC) held that non-disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reasons towards the end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with the objections results in gross harassment to the assessee which the Pr. CIT should note and take remedial action. In the present appeal also, the Asses…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…tax has escaped assessment by reason for the failure on the part of the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC) held that non-disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reasons towards the end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with the objections results in gross harassment to the assessee which the Pr. CIT should note and take remedial action. In the present appeal also, the Asses…