Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) v. IFCI

296 ITR 573High Court2008#12892 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10B Section 139 Section 142 Section 150(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

beyond four years material facts necessary for assessment first proviso to section 147 mere change of opinion change of opinion reason to believe reopening of assessment escapement of income notice under section 148 section 142 reassessment proceedings assistant commissioner

Judgments citing Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) v. IFCI

SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 22, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, made the action taken by the Assessing Officer wholly without jurisdiction. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed. " (emphasis Supplied) (b) CIT v. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) "the reopening of the assessment under s. 148 beyond the period of four years at the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is established that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. in this case there is no finding that there is failure on the part of the as…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…o disclose the primary facts and that\nthe ITO had considered the entire material at the time of original assessment—Therefore,\nTribunal was right in holding that ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment\n(xi) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.)\nReassessment—Full and true disclosure—Notice after expiry of four years—In case where the\nassessment is completed under s.143(3) the reopening of the assessment under s.148 beyond the\nperiod of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is\nestablished that there is a failure on the part of the a…

THARMARAJ GOPI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

…diction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, made the action taken by the Assessing Officer wholly without jurisdiction. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed. " (b) CIT v. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) "the reopening of the assessment under s. 148 beyond the period of four years at the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is established that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. in this case there is no finding that there is failure on the part of the ass…

ACIT,CORPORATE CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…264 ITR 566 as well as this Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elgi Finance Ltd. (supra) and came to the correct conclusion.” ii) The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd., reported in [2008] 296 ITR 573, has observed as under:- “In case where the assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, the reopening of the assessment under section 148 beyond the period of four years at the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is established that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full…

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

…sessee to make Return Of income or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the Assessment, no reopening is permissible u/s 147/148 21. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs ELGI ULTRA INDUSTRIES LTD (296 ITR 573 Mad) as well as CIT vs A.V.THOMAS EXPORTS LTD (296 ITR 603 Mad) which are squarely applicable to the case on hand of the Appellant/Assessee. STAX DEXH 22. In the Notice u/s 148 dated 24th August 2012 as well as the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 20th February 2014, the AO has not referred to any "tangible & fresh material" that has come into his possess…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…s Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Yuvraj Vs UOI [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bom). The facts of this case are distinguishable. In the case of assessee proviso to section 147 is applicable whereas in the cited case the Assessment Year was AY 1996-97 and the case was re-opened on 17-05-2000 which is within four y…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

SMT RUCHIKA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…ittings Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom) (vi) Desai Bros Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bom) (vii) Bhot Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom) (viii) CIT (Addl.) Vs. IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del) (ix) CIT Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.). For the addition, it was contended by the ld AR that reopening was not valid applying the proposition of law laid down in above judicial pronouncements 5. With regard to merit of disallowance, the ld AR has relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that no disallowance is warranted when there is no exe…