Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

41 ITR 191Supreme Court of India1961#192 most cited

What is Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

384

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · assessee's duty · full and true disclosure · primary facts · material facts for assessment · drawing inferences · reassessment conditions

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 151Section 143(2)Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentfresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatorfull and true disclosurebeyond four yearsmere change of opinionlive linksection 35dsection 148(2)

Judgments citing Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

…proceedings. 21. The view subsequently formed by the Ld.AO based on the materials filed by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, thereby granting deduction. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 41 ITR 191 has held that, it is the duty of the assessee to disclose all primary facts which have a bearing on the liability of income earned by the assessee, being subjected to tax. It is then for the assessing officer, to draw an inference from such facts and apply the law to determine such liability of the assessee. Once that is done, and the assessment o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…tted that, the expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the ITO. The decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the ITO as held in case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO reported in [1961] Page 8 of 26 41 ITR 191 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that ‘Reason to believe’ does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, and that, the belief must be held in good faith. He also submitted that, it cannot be merely a pretence as held in case of S. Narayanappa v. CIT reported in [1967] 63 ITR 219 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further su…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…that, there must be a live link between the reasons recorded and material, based on which the reassessment proceedings are to be initiated. He placed reliance on the following decision in support of this contention: 1. M/s. Calcutta Discount Co., reported in 41 ITR 191 [SC] 2. Gangasaran reported in 130 ITR 1 3. Chuharmal Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603 [SC] 4. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 [SC] 5. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 552 & 553/Bang/2018 by order dt. 16.10.2020. Page 7 of 17 10. On the other hand, Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, the authority below was justified in reo…

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…ssment on the basis of audit objection. The ld. Departmental Representative in order to support his contention placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 340 ITR 53(Delhi) (ii) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Gruh Finance Ltd. vs. JCIT, 243 ITR 482 (Guj) (iv) Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., 191 ITR 662(SC) (v) Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34(SC) (vi) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker, 291 ITR 500 (SC) 6 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) 6.1 The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that it is not a ca…

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…ssment on the basis of audit objection. The ld. Departmental Representative in order to support his contention placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 340 ITR 53(Delhi) (ii) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Gruh Finance Ltd. vs. JCIT, 243 ITR 482 (Guj) (iv) Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., 191 ITR 662(SC) (v) Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34(SC) (vi) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker, 291 ITR 500 (SC) 6 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) 6.1 The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that it is not a ca…

Comm Vault Systems (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Gautam, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…IT v. Arvind Remedies Ltd (2015) 93 CCH 121 (Mad H.C), CIT v. Page 3 of 4 ITA No 380 of 2019 COm Vault Systems India P Ltd Schwing Stetter India P Ltd (2015)93 CCH 112 (Mad H.C), Gemeni Leather Stores (1975) 100 ITR 1 (S.C), Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1961) 41 ITR 191 (S.C), Garden Silk Mills Ltd v. Dy.CIT (1997) 092 Taxman 022, Lokendra Singh v. Income Tax Officer (1981) 5 Taxman 74 (M.P), CIT vs. Madanlal Sohanlal (1981) 7 Taxman 303 (Cal.), Aayojan Developers v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 10 Taxmann.com 226 (Guj).to quash the impugned reopening for the foregoing precise reasons. The assessee succeeds in its f…

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-2, Bharuch

ITA 1472/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs GIDC Estate-393002 Circle, PAN : AAACB 8075 F Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent ITA No.2017/AHD/2014, & ITA Nos. 1470 & 1472/AHD/2017 (AY 2007-08) Enviro Technology Ltd. Assistant Commissioner of 2413/14, GIDC Ankleshwar- Income Tax, Bharuch Vs 393 002 Circle, 1st Floor, Above PAN : AAACE4126G Bank of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Assessee / appellant R…

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch

ITA 499/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs GIDC Estate-393002 Circle, PAN : AAACB 8075 F Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent ITA No.2017/AHD/2014, & ITA Nos. 1470 & 1472/AHD/2017 (AY 2007-08) Enviro Technology Ltd. Assistant Commissioner of 2413/14, GIDC Ankleshwar- Income Tax, Bharuch Vs 393 002 Circle, 1st Floor, Above PAN : AAACE4126G Bank of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Assessee / appellant R…

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

ITA 2017/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 234D(1)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs GIDC Estate-393002 Circle, PAN : AAACB 8075 F Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent ITA No.2017/AHD/2014, & ITA Nos. 1470 & 1472/AHD/2017 (AY 2007-08) Enviro Technology Ltd. Assistant Commissioner of 2413/14, GIDC Ankleshwar- Income Tax, Bharuch Vs 393 002 Circle, 1st Floor, Above PAN : AAACE4126G Bank of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Assessee / appellant R…

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…approach for estimating the provisions for warranty and no details were filed and hence, it cannot be said that there is true disclosure. The ld.CIT-DR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., vs. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 and Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, 203 ITR 456. 9. We have gone through the original assessment order, the reasons recorded and the details filed before AO during the course of original assessment proceedings vide letters dated 13.10.2011 & 19.12.2011. We have also gone through queries raised by AO during the course of original assessment proceedi…

Jai Jagannath Mover P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147

…tion. There is nothing whatsoever in the impugned notice issued by the Assessing Officer to indicate that he has applied his mind to this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies on the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd., v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) to support his contention that it is not only the primary facts but inference to be drawn from such facts which also can form part of the material on which the Assessing Officer may form his belief. Learned counsel is right there. As the Supreme Court has explained in this case, from the primary facts in his possession, whether on disclosure…

S.Ramamirtham, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, the revision order is quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 959/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri S. Ramamirtham, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.33, Corporate Ward -5(4), Sarvanalayam, Chennai – 34. P.S. Sivaswamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aadpr 0369J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Chennai U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order No.Pcit- 5/Ito(Hq)/Sr/263-4/2018-19 Dated 20.02.20219. The Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Corporate Ward-5(4), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Vide His Order Dated 30.06.2016 U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Pcit Revising The Assessment U/S.263 Of The Act, Revising The Assessment Order Framed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Under Limited Scrutiny Under Cass By Issuing Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Dated 31.08.2015. The Assessee Has Challenged This Issue On Jurisdiction As Well As On Merits I.E., Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Read With Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & (Iii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’) I.E., Interest Disallowance & Disallowance Of Club Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 10(33)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…, the PCIT is within his right u/s.263 of the Act to direct the AO in revision proceedings to reframe the assessment as directed. Further, he mainly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd., vs. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). The ld.CIT-DR stated that no doubt the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd., is as regard to assessment of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act, but, the PCIT in present case have reasons to assume jurisdiction because the order of AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He rea…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

ITA 4277/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36

…oceedings of the assessment years. 5.1.16 Reason to believe' as envisaged in section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been the matter of judicial scrutiny by the Apex Court and other courts in several cases. In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC), it was observed that it is the duty of the appellant to disclose all the primary facts which have a bearing on the liability of the income earned by the appellant being subjected to tax. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences from the facts and apply the law determining the liability of the appellant. The appellant cannot draw th…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…thin the meaning of the proviso. The action initiated by the respondent does not in that view suffer from any error of jurisdiction to warrant interference from this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction." 8.31 In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO[1961] 41 ITR 191 , the Apex Court held that while it was the duty of the assessee to disclose all facts which had a bearing on the question, what inference should be drawn from the facts so disclosed was a matter to be examined by the Income-tax Officer. The Court further held that the Income-tax Officer could issue a notice for re- M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. &…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…cumbent had no jurisdiction to review the subject matter and issue directions in such an instance. It was contended that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in this regard is in total disregard to the decisions of the SC in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd, (1976) 105 ITR 212, 219 (SC); and CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234(SC). 8.2 On appraisal of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and on perusal of the orders of the CIT(A), it appears self- ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan Sukumaran vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - evident that t…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…cumbent had no jurisdiction to review the subject matter and issue directions in such an instance. It was contended that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in this regard is in total disregard to the decisions of the SC in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd, (1976) 105 ITR 212, 219 (SC); and CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234(SC). 8.2 On appraisal of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and on perusal of the orders of the CIT(A), it appears self- ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan Sukumaran vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - evident that t…

Madan Mohan Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…r holds the belief induced by the existence of reasons for holding such belief. It contemplates existence of. reasons on which the belief is founded, and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons ind…… belief. Calcutta Discount Go. Ltd. v. AO — [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)] : Bhadarmal Hazarimal v. 1.T.0 - [(1975) 100 ITR 159 (Gau)] In view of the above, it is clear that there is no ground to conclude that income has escaped assessment in the case of the Assessee and, accordingly, it is prayed that the notice in question may kindly be filed. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, MADAN MOHAN TIWARI 5. A perusal of…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ll material facts necessary for his assessment. Herein we are not dealing with a case corning under section 34(1)(b). All that we have to see is whether the requirements of section 34(1)(a) are satisfied. This Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, ruled that to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to take action under section 34(1)(a) two conditions must be satisfied, viz., (1) he has reason to believe that there was under- assessment, and (2) that he must have reason to believe that the under-assessment has resulted from non-disclosure of material facts. On the facts found, under…

Sri.Venkataramanappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 151

…d down by the Hon’ble Court: "What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case [1961] 41 ITR 191 but to require the assessee first to lodge preliminary objection before the Assessing Officer who is bound to decide the preliminary objections to issuance of the reassessment notice by passing a speaking order and, therefore, if such order on the preliminary objections is still against the assessee, the assessee will get an opportunity to challen…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/542/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…sessing Officer has formed an opinion and the proceeding for re-assessment have been initiated only on the basis of change of opinion. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions 'CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. VS. ITO', (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), 'CIT VS. 9 KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.', (2002) 123 TAXMAN 433 (DELHI) (FB), 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.', (2010) 187 TAXMAN 312 (SC), 'NYK LINE (INDIA) LTD. VS. DCIT', (2012) 28 TAXMANN.COM 229 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD.', (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 200 (DELHI) (FB) AND 'ACIT VS. MARICO LTD.', (2020) 117 TAXMANN.C…