Bombay in Bhavesh Developers v. AO & Ors.

229 CTR 160High Court2010#20047 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151

Judgments citing Bombay in Bhavesh Developers v. AO & Ors.

VENSAR CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1530/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 148

…been the submission of the Revenue that there was any suppression of material facts on the part of the Petitioner. (emphasis supplied by us) Further, we find that a similar view was taken by the High Court of Bombay in Bhavesh Developers vs. AO & Ors. (2010) 229 CTR 160 (Bom), wherein it was observed as under: "Significantly, the reasons that have been disclosed to the assessee do not contain a finding to the effect that there was a failure to fully and truly disclose all necessary facts, necessary for the purpose of assessment. In these circumstances, the condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power to…

VAMA INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…e decision of the jurisdictional High Court has since been affirmed by the Apex Court in ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 299 (SC). Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in the case of Bhavesh Developers (2010) 229 CTR 160 (Bom) wherein the AO reopened the assessment after expiry of four years on the contention that deduction u/s 80IB was not to be allowed on other income which mainly comprises of society deposit, stilt parking and sundry credit balance. The Hon'ble High Court in arriving at the decision held that reasons which\nPage | 7\nITA No. 5456/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 15. Siemens Information. 295 ITR 333 (Bom) 16. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 200(Mad) 17. Bhavesh Developers, 229 CTR 160(Bom) 18. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. JCIT: 245 ITR 645 (Cal) 19. Mercury Travels Ltd.. Vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 20. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. ACIT: 322 ITR 369 (Cal) 21. Aventis Pharma Limited, 323 ITR 570(Bom) 23. Usha International Limited, 348 ITR 485 (Del) 24. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 292 ITR 49 (Del) 25. Vipan Khanna, 255 ITR 220…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…the jurisdictional High Court has since been affirmed by the Apex Court in ACIT - vs. - ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 299 (SC). 3.12] Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in the case of Bhavesh Developers -vs.- AO (2010) 229 CTR 160 (Bom) wherein the AO reopened the assessment after expiry of four years on the contention that deduction u/s 80IB is not to be allowed on other income which mainly comprises of society deposit, stilt parking and sundry credit balance. The Hon'ble High Court in arriving at the decision held that reasons which have been disclosed to the appellant s…