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 366,314 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

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Vishwas Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2613/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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” Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 12 of 13 Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 19. leviable…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Anupam Infrastructure, Surat

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

ITA 2340/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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 19. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat vs. M/S. Png Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2339/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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 19. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Shree Gokul Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2338/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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” Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 12 of 13 Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 19. leviable…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Shree Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2337/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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” Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 12 of 13 Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 19. leviable…

The ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli vs. M/S. Giriraj Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2335/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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” Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 12 of 13 Therefore, in the light of ratio of above decision no penalty is 19. leviable…

The DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sai Vihar Corporation, Surat

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

ITA 2329/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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 19. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Aastha Enterprise, Surat

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

ITA 2089/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

Section 133ASection 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 20. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Aastha Eco Homes, Surat

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

ITA 2088/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

Section 133ASection 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 20. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Aastha Corporation, Surat

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

ITA 2087/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

Section 133ASection 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 20. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Aastha Developers, Surat

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

ITA 2086/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

Section 133ASection 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 20. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

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

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

ITA 2084/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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 19. leviable wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Imperial Developers, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

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 leviable 18. wherein even in the change of heads of income is made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The…

Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6892/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa Vs. Dcit, International Taxation C/O 6Th Floor, Building No.7 A Circle 1(3)(1) Standard Chartered Building New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase Iii Gurgaon 122 002 Haryana

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, D.R
Section 147Section 9

…ovo Pignone SPA, Gurgaon that expression “reason to believe” has been subject matter of judicial interpretation on numerous occasions, by placing reliance upon :  Decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd vs ITO reported in 41 ITR 191, Sheo Nath Sngh (1971) 82 ITR 147 ITR, ITO vs. Lakshmani Mweal Das 103 ITR 437, Ganga Saran and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 ;  Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Seth Bros. vs. DCIT reported in 251 ITR 270;  Decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd vs. DCIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 170 and Satn…

Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2646/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, Vs. Acit, 83, Sunder Nagar, New Circle-20(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aagpp8743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Somil Aggarwal & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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. vs. Income Tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 8 (SC) 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.” 10. We find that in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has changed the head of income from business loss to long-term capital loss. The issue in dispute involved being ident…

Sh. Sourabh Jain, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-2(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं, एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.699/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sh.Saurabh Jain, बनाम The Income Tax Officer, 617, Mandi Kesar Ganj, Ward-2(3), Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABDPJ6781B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar Aditya Kumar, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR सनवाई…

Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 15(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…legally assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The judicial principle as set out in the foregoing finds support in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (41 ITR 191) wherein the Apex Court had held as follows: "Both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under- assessment has resulted from nondisclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to start proce…

Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-15(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…legally assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The judicial principle as set out in the foregoing finds support in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (41 ITR 191) wherein the Apex Court had held as follows: "Both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under- assessment has resulted from nondisclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to start proce…

M/S. Dsc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Dsc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle -15, E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacd0003D ( Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 .10.2018 O R D E R Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10Th November 2014 In Appeal No.97/2014-15 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, New Delhi For Asstt. Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Execution Of Contractual Works Including The Extension Of Widening Of Highways, Construction Of Flyovers, Culverts

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…recorded that assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, as such the proceedings are without any jurisdiction in view of statutory provisions contained in proviso to Section 147 of the Act: SUPREME COURT i) (1961)] 41 ITR 191 (SC) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO; a) ( 1998) 231 ITR 200 (SC) Coca-Cola Export Corpn. v. ITO b) DELHI HIGH COURT ii) WPC 747/2014 .dated 17.10.2014 Global Signal Cables (India) a) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 368 ITR 609 ITA No. 468/2014 dt 19.08.2014 CIT vs. Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. b) c) [2014] 226 Taxman 162 (Del) M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. [201…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…[1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20,…