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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ormation of the belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year. This proposition of law is well encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: - Calcutta Discount vs. ITO, 1961 41 ITR 191(SC): “37: The notices issued by the Income Tax Officer in the case before us undoubtedly fulfill conditions (2) and (3). Notices of reassessment were served before the expiry of eight years of the end of the relevant years of assessment. The Income Tax Officer C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO also recorded his…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ormation of the belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year. This proposition of law is well encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: - Calcutta Discount vs. ITO, 1961 41 ITR 191(SC): “37: The notices issued by the Income Tax Officer in the case before us undoubtedly fulfill conditions (2) and (3). Notices of reassessment were served before the expiry of eight years of the end of the relevant years of assessment. The Income Tax Officer C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO also recorded his…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( Manav Mangal Society), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…ustan Zinc Ltd [2007] 393 ITR 264 -RAJ- HC. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has relied on the following celebrated judgments:- i). CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India L…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

…The pre- requisite condition required for the Assessing Officer is to give his own findings for reopening the case in hand and not to rely upon the findings given by any other officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) analyzed the phrase "reason to believe" and observed that: "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn.” In the instant case, the reasons rec…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Years 1328/Bang/2019 JCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2016-17 Special Range-5, Bengaluru. Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., No.1, Uthunga Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2082/Bang/2017 M/s. Karnataka State ACIT, 2013-14 Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 018. Bengaluru. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2083/Bang/2017 -do- -do- 2014-15 2150/Bang/2017 DCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2008-09 Circle –…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Years 1328/Bang/2019 JCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2016-17 Special Range-5, Bengaluru. Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., No.1, Uthunga Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2082/Bang/2017 M/s. Karnataka State ACIT, 2013-14 Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 018. Bengaluru. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2083/Bang/2017 -do- -do- 2014-15 2150/Bang/2017 DCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2008-09 Circle –…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Years 1328/Bang/2019 JCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2016-17 Special Range-5, Bengaluru. Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., No.1, Uthunga Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2082/Bang/2017 M/s. Karnataka State ACIT, 2013-14 Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 018. Bengaluru. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2083/Bang/2017 -do- -do- 2014-15 2150/Bang/2017 DCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2008-09 Circle –…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Years 1328/Bang/2019 JCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2016-17 Special Range-5, Bengaluru. Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., No.1, Uthunga Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2082/Bang/2017 M/s. Karnataka State ACIT, 2013-14 Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 018. Bengaluru. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2083/Bang/2017 -do- -do- 2014-15 2150/Bang/2017 DCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2008-09 Circle –…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Years 1328/Bang/2019 JCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2016-17 Special Range-5, Bengaluru. Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., No.1, Uthunga Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2082/Bang/2017 M/s. Karnataka State ACIT, 2013-14 Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 018. Bengaluru. PAN : AABAT 0269 J 2083/Bang/2017 -do- -do- 2014-15 2150/Bang/2017 DCIT, M/s. Karnataka State 2008-09 Circle –…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…er of review on the same set of facts and law. 15 Shri Jagdish U. 7.7 What is meant by true and full disclosure ? Law in this regard has been succintly laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), wherein it is held that : “(8)...The words used are "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year". It postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material, and necessary for assessment will di…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.192 OF 2015 BETWEEN: K.R. SATYANARAYANA NO.1036-20, 4TH MAIN VIDYRANYAPURAM MYSURU. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. SWATHI SUKUMAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX "SHILPASHRE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2 "SHILPASHREE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1),…

Krishna Ramesh Sharma, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent.Cir.-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 4915/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4915/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 ) Mrs. Krishna Ramesh बिधम/ Dcit-Central Circle 2(1) Sharma Mumba, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Flat No. 1101, Sadguru Pratistha Bhawan, M. K. Kalyan Building, Junction Of Road, Mumbai-400020. 13Th & 17 Road, Khar, Mumbai400052. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4916/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Mr. Ramesh H. Sharma Dcit-Central Circle 2(1) Flat No. 1101, Sadguru Mumba, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Kalyan Building, Junction Of Pratistha Bhawan, M. K. 13Th & 17 Road, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaops5770R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant Pai Revenue By: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. Ita. No.4916/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…ompleting the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. It is the change of the opinion of the AO which is not permissible in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France & Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC). Furthermore, we found that the assessment of the assessee was reopened after the expiry of 4 years. As per proviso u/s 147 of the Act, no action can be taken after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years if income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of failure of the assessee to make fully to disclo…

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/113/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.112 OF 2016 C/W I.T.A.NO.113 OF 2016 I.T.A.NO.112/2016 BETWEEN: M/S. MERCK LIFE SCIENCE PVT. LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. MILLIPORE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) 50A, 2ND PHASE, RING ROAD PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1) 14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP. RBI), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY…