How many judgments cite Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO?

384 judgments on BharatTax cite Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (41 ITR 191), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 151.

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 366,005 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 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 132

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosure material facts necessary for assessment fresh tangible material first proviso to section 147 kelvinator full and true disclosure beyond four years mere change of opinion live link section 35d section 148(2)

Judgments citing Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question Dixit Processor before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treat…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nd necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treat…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…II-Tri) " Panchananhati Vs CIT 115 ITR 336 (Cal.) " Sheonarain Jaiswal Vs ITO 1989 (1796) ITR 352 (Pat.) " Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) " CST Vs Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) " Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 " Ashok Kumar Sen Vs ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Technocraft Industries Vs AO (1990) 186 ITR 514 " Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1961) 52 ITR 335 (SC) " Gardhara Singh (1980) 125 ITR 340 (P&H) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) " ITO Vs Rajeev Aggarwal 89 TTJ 1095 (Del.) " Kishenchand Chellaram V…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 143(3)

…e not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC))." 7. In Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of I. T. [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) the Supreme Court (Hegde J.) observed as under (page 153) : "There can be no manner of doubt that the words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income- tax Officer may act on dire…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2008-2009 M/s. Santech Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.268, New No.25, Income Tax, Lloyds Road, Company Circle VI(1) Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai 600 014 [PAN AAICS 4314G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advoca…

P Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 21.11.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

…e not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC))." In Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of I. T. [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) 6.4 the Supreme Court (Hegde J.) observed as under (page 153) : "There can be no manner of doubt that the words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and rea sonable 13 person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income- tax Officer may act…

M/S. Network Programme (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4147/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 43B

…assessment order was not framed properly as it overlooked certain materials which led to loss of revenue. The AO in the first instance did not perform his job properly for which the assessee cannot be faulted with. In Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. I.T.O. 41 ITR 191 the Supreme Court had pointedly observed that the assessee is required to fairly disclose what is expected of him the primary facts while submitting the returns. It is up to the AO to draw the necessary inferences. In the present case the Aos omission appears to have been the sole basis for issuing the reassessment notice and consequently proceedi…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nd necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Anil Bihani 5 Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Shri. M.R. Seetharama (Indl), Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1220/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…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…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…e not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC))." 12. In Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of I. T. [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) the Supreme Court (Hegde J.) observed as under (page 153) : "There can be no manner of doubt that the words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and rea sonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income- tax Officer may act on d…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/JPR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) “Assessee primarily must disclose particular portions of documents which are material.” (f) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) (g) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) (h) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (i) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 4.8. In the above quoted cases, mainly it was held that the assessee must disclose all primary facts fully and truly. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year, postulate a duty on every assessee to 15 ITA No. 7…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi ACIT Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3rdKumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 PAN No. AACPM0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru…

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

M/S. Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2092/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri S. D. Kapila, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr. D. R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…following decisions :- (i) Phoolchand Banjaranglal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. A. R. Enterprises (2002) 255 ITR 121 (Raj.); (iii) Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 168 ITR 296 (P & H); (iv) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); (v) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 175 (Del.); (vi) 175 Taxman 262 (Del.); (vii) Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 270 ITR 290 (P & H). (viii) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 555 (Del). 5.1 The ld. AR also referred CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989 reported in 182 ITR (St.) 1, 29. 5.2 The ld. AR submitted fu…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…[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,…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1061/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…ITA Nos.1058/2011, 1061/2011 & 1063/2011 Page 1 of 11 $~1 to 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1058/2011 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel versus ROLLS ROYCE INDUSTRIAL POWER INDIA LTD.....Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Mayank Negi & Mr. Arth Taran Panda, Advocates WITH + ITA 1061/2011 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1058/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…76ITR 35 (Pat.) 41. Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State ofGujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 42. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. ITO Reported as ITA 375/Del/2011 43. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta & Anr., (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) 44. CIT v. Shri Ttrath Ram Ahuja (HUF), (2008) 306ITR 173 (DEL) 45. In P. C Gulati, Voluntary Liquidator, Panipat Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi, (1972) 86ITR 501 (DEL), 46. Harish Chandra & Ors. v. CIT, (1985) 154 ITR 478 (DEL) Topandas Kundanmal v. CIT, (1978) 114 ITR 237 (GUJ) were also quoted with approval. 47: CIT, West Ben…

Goldtex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR

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

…see knows all the material and relevant facts—the assessing authority might not. In respect of the failure to disclose, the omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent but that is immaterial.” 3.1 The case law in of Calcutta Discount company [1961] 41 ITR 191 does not help the cause of the assessee because issue at hand in that case was that AO alleged that assessee failed to disclose its ‘true intension behind sales of shares’. The Hon’ble SC held that finding ‘intension’ is a matter of ‘inference’ which could be different for different people. Therefore, it is duty of the AO to draw inference from pr…