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

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी र$मत कोचर, लेखा सद य के सम( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 v. Shri K. Srikanth, The Asst. Commissioner of C/o. Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle-II(4), 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai-600 020. [PAN: AAFPS 6375 K] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपी…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी र$मत कोचर, लेखा सद य के सम( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 v. Shri K. Srikanth, The Asst. Commissioner of C/o. Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle-II(4), 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai-600 020. [PAN: AAFPS 6375 K] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपी…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…ference of fact and legal inferences can be drawn. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhawar Singh Ji (supra) following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, wherein proposition was laid down that it is for the AO to draw the correct conclusions, regardless of the position of the assessee and held that is now well established law that regardless of what an assessee claims, if the correct position deductible from the primary fact either the Assessing Officer has to adopt that correct position and there…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…ference of fact and legal inferences can be drawn. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhawar Singh Ji (supra) following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, wherein proposition was laid down that it is for the AO to draw the correct conclusions, regardless of the position of the assessee and held that is now well established law that regardless of what an assessee claims, if the correct position deductible from the primary fact either the Assessing Officer has to adopt that correct position and there…

M/S Telekom Malaysia Berhad vs. Union of India

Appeal is dismissed

WA/991/2018HC Karnataka03 Feb 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4

…ntends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191. He contends that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the question of jurisdiction has been questioned, the writ 6 court should have entertained this plea. That the plea of the petitioner is that the authorities do not have any jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the said…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2048/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan : Aaacf1034E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…s in the satisfaction note are based on the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2011- 12. No new facts have been unearthed for granting the jurisdiction for reopening the assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (41 ITR 191) & CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) has explained that there must be a nexus between the material placement record & the decision arrived by the Assessing Officer regarding re-opening of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind & take a conscious decision on a particular matter in issue. The re-opening of th…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Urban Development Authority(Suda), Surat

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2431/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Tosniwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…tain facts. However, while re-opening the reassessment proceedings the A.O seem to have changed the opinion based on the same set of facts and information. There are various case law such as CIT vs Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561, Calcutta Discount Co. vs ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC). J.V A vs ITO 40 Taxmann.com Guj H.C, Gujarat State Board of School Text Book vs ACIT SCA 15715 of 2010, Guj H.C etc. with regard to reopening of assessment proceedings. In all these cases it has been held that based on change of opinion and in absence of any adverse tangible material the A.O cannot re-open the assessment proceedings. I agree…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Urban Development Authority(Suda), Surat

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2430/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Tosniwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…tain facts. However, while re-opening the reassessment proceedings the A.O seem to have changed the opinion based on the same set of facts and information. There are various case law such as CIT vs Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561, Calcutta Discount Co. vs ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC). J.V A vs ITO 40 Taxmann.com Guj H.C, Gujarat State Board of School Text Book vs ACIT SCA 15715 of 2010, Guj H.C etc. with regard to reopening of assessment proceedings. In all these cases it has been held that based on change of opinion and in absence of any adverse tangible material the A.O cannot re-open the assessment proceedings. I agree…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Urban Development Authority(Suda), Surat

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2429/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Tosniwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…tain facts. However, while re-opening the reassessment proceedings the A.O seem to have changed the opinion based on the same set of facts and information. There are various case law such as CIT vs Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561, Calcutta Discount Co. vs ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC). J.V A vs ITO 40 Taxmann.com Guj H.C, Gujarat State Board of School Text Book vs ACIT SCA 15715 of 2010, Guj H.C etc. with regard to reopening of assessment proceedings. In all these cases it has been held that based on change of opinion and in absence of any adverse tangible material the A.O cannot re-open the assessment proceedings. I agree…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kvf Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Cross-Objection of the Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 5731/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: And Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.5731/Del./2014 Assessment Year 2003-2004 M/s. KVF Securities (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Plot No.54, Mahatta Ward- 5 (3), Towers, Community vs., Room No.305, C.R. Centre, Janak Puri, Building, New Delhi – 002. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN AABCK0591Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.169/Del./2015 Arising out of ITA.No.5731/Del./2014 - Assessment Year 2003-2004 M/s. KVF Securities (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Plot No.54, Mahatta Ward- 5 (3), Towers, Communit…

Oleofine Organics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee with regard to limited purpose of Ground No

ITA 5831/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Oleofine Organics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Pvt.Ltd. Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2) 101/B, Fine House Aayakar Bhavan Anandji Lane New Marine Lines Off. M.G. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1352Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…mited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law. (See observations of this court in the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)and S.Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) while dealing with the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). Hence we hold that the reliance placed on Explanation 1 to section 147 by the ld DR also does not advance the case of the revenue. In view of our aforesaid detailed observations on the v…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 2 13 Further, the expression 'reason to believe' does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, the belief must be held in good faith; it cannot merely be a pretext—Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), S. Narayanappav. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) and Y. Rajanv.lTO [1970] 77 ITR 839(AP).The belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour—SheoNath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), Asoke Kumar Sen v.…

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f the belief by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped assessment cannot be based on whims and fancy, there must exists rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief. 6. In the matter of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax, 1922, which were similar to the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 explained the purports of Section 34, as under:— 'To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue notice in respect of assessments beyond th…

ITO (E), Dehradun vs. M/S Icfai University, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3657/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 12Section 148

…derably softened by the apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.’s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 in the year 2003. In my view, therefore, the GKN Drivesharfts (India) Ltd. ’s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 does not run counter to the Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) but it merely provides for challenge to the reassessment notice in two stages, that is, (i) Raising preliminary objections before the Assessing Officer and in case of failure before the Assessing Officer; (ii) Challenging the speaking order of the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act.” 12. In a subsequent judgment the Hon’ble Guj…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…sessing officer had received fresh material information from Investigation Wing/DRI about payment of money. This matter was not part of the original scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the reopening is valid. 5.2.5 In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO 41 ITR 191 fSC), it was observed that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose all the primary facts which have a bearing on the liability of the income earned by the assessee 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 assessee. 5.2.6 Discovery of new and impo…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 947/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s J.K. Enterprises Ward-2, Choburja Bazar, Old Hospital Road, Bharatpur. Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHBPG 8155 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwa…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 946/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s J.K. Enterprises Ward-2, Choburja Bazar, Old Hospital Road, Bharatpur. Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHBPG 8155 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwa…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…by indulging in surmises conjecture and without bringing any adverse material on record. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he relied upon the following case laws:- - CIT VS. EICHER LTD. 294 ITR 310 (DELHI). - CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. VS. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) - CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) - CIT VS. FEATHER FOAM ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. (2008) 2967 ITR 342 (DEL.) - SHEONATH SINGH VS. ACIT (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) - DALMIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT & ANR. 64 DTR 417 - BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. VS. DCIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2001 VIDE ORDEDR DATED 12.6.2014. - FENNER INDIA L…

The ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli vs. M/S. Ram Corporation, Surat

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3225/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an “inaccurate particulars” or as suppression of facts. The court is also conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 where it was held that it is up to the Assessing Officer to interpret the return and discern as to which head of income the amount had to be brought to tax” Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 17. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 18.…

The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. M/S. R.L.B. Developers, Surat

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3223/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an “inaccurate particulars” or as suppression of facts. The court is also conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 where it was held that it is up to the Assessing Officer to interpret the return and discern as to which head of income the amount had to be brought to tax” Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 17. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 18.…