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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1108/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential.” 28. In Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer 41 ITR 191 the Supreme Court, while considering the import of the words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment", observed as under: "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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1109/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential.” 28. In Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer 41 ITR 191 the Supreme Court, while considering the import of the words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment", observed as under: "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…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s report, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the control and management of the affa…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s report, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the control and management of the affa…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s report, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the control and management of the affa…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s report, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the control and management of the affa…

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

ITTA/192/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Commissioner of Income Tax – II vs. Co. Ltd

ITA/356/2013HC Delhi22 Sept 2015
For Appellant: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Ved Jain and Mr Pranjal Srivastava
Section 115JSection 147Section 260ASection 68

…ined in the proviso to Section 147 have not been met as there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to either file the return of income or to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 20. In Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer: 41 ITR 191 the Supreme Court considered the import of the words "omission or failure 2015:DHC:7971-DB ITA 356/2013 Page 19 of 32 to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment" and observed as und…

M/S Tejas Networks Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

WP/7004/2014HC Karnataka24 Apr 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

…Mastek Ltd., (5) (1973) 87 ITR 539 (SC) Raza Textiles Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur (6) (2003) 128 Taxman 190 Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT (7) (2013) 40 taxman.com 545 Vodafone India Ltd., vs. Union of India (8) (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer (9) (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Foramer France (10) (2007) 001 CLR 0067 (SC) Union of India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (11) (AA) (2009) 236 ELT 425 (SC) M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner (12) (2010) 254 EL…

CIT vs. Amit Jain

ITA - 683 / 2012HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 271(1)(c)

…d 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 (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. . In view of the above circumstance, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the same is dismissed. . . .…

Director of Income Tax vs. Mc Donalds Corporation

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 908 / 2011HC Delhi11 Dec 2012
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44D

…roceeding and in the first reassessment proceedings i.e. the taxability of the royalty income under section 44D. Having regard to these, this Court is of the opinion that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 applies; squarely to the facts in this case it was held by the Supreme Court that the duty of the assessee to make full disclosure extends to primary facts. Once that is done, it is the Assessing Officer‟s duty to draw the conclusion and inference flowing from the disclosure so made. This aspect was highlighted in the following terms: - “…

Director of Income Tax vs. Mc Donalds Corporation

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/908/2011HC Delhi11 Dec 2012
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44D

…roceeding and in the first reassessment proceedings i.e. the taxability of the royalty income under section 44D. Having regard to these, this Court is of the opinion that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 applies; squarely to the facts in this case it was held by the Supreme Court that the duty of the assessee to make full disclosure extends to primary facts. Once that is done, it is the Assessing Officer‟s duty to draw the conclusion and inference flowing from the disclosure so made. This aspect was highlighted in the following terms: - “…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/1232/2009HC Delhi18 Oct 2012
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…nder Section 147 invalid and without jurisdiction; and secondly, that,in law, there was no such failure as all the primary facts had been disclosed. He placed reliance on Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District, I and Anr. 41 ITR 191. Furthermore, he contended that the notice under 2012:DHC:6521-DB W.P.(C) 759/2013 Page 5 Section 148 was issued due to a mere change in opinion, which is not sustainable. It was also urged that software expenses, a…

Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA/1395/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 260ASection 68

…g officer from initiating re-assessment, if it is of the view that there is no reason to start with the proceedings. Reliance was also placed on Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Another reported in [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), particularly the following observation that: "5. It was held by this Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income- tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Another: [1961]41ITR191(SC) that the High Court in appropriate cases has power to issue an order prohibiting the Income-tax Officer from proceeding to reassess the incom…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

ITTA/422/2006HC Telangana27 Aug 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

CIT vs. Manak Shoes Co Pvt Ltd

ITA/1856/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143Section 147

…ITA 1856/2010 Page 1 of 15 REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + [ITA 1856 OF 2010] RESERVED ON: 05.4.2011 % PRONOUNCED ON:11.5.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel VERSUS MANAK SHOES CO. PVT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA…

CIT vs. Manak Shoes Co Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1856 / 2010HC Delhi11 May 2011
Section 143Section 147

…ITA 1856/2010 Page 1 of 15 REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + [ITA 1856 OF 2010] RESERVED ON: 05.4.2011 % PRONOUNCED ON:11.5.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel VERSUS MANAK SHOES CO. PVT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA…

M/S Central India Electric Supply Co.Ltd vs. ITO-Company Circle X & Ors

The appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own

ITA - 17 / 1999HC Delhi28 Jan 2011

Bench: Us In The Present Appeal, Are: “(1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That Re-Assessment Proceedings Under Section 147(A) Read With Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Had Been Rightly Initiated Against The Assessee?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54

…losed chapter of the assessment year 1965–66. 12. To support its various pleas, the appellant relied upon various judgments The judgment in Calcutta Discount Co 2011:DHC:510-DB Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr., (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) was relied upon to support the plea that the pre-requisite of non-disclosure has to be there for the ITO to exercise the power. In this behalf, an important judgment referred to was in the case of CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF), (2008) 306 ITR 173 (DEL) where it was emphasized that the facts, which have not been disclosed, must be…

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 464 of 2010 ITA NO. 465 of 2010 ITA NO. 473 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on: December 2,2010 % Judgment Delivered on: January 14, 2011. (1) ITA NO. 464 of 2010 CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION . . . APPELLANT Through : Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mahua Kalra, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Ms. Husnal Syali and Mr. Sumit K. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . .RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel. (2) ITA N…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi VIII vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

…missioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del), wherein this Court after discussing at length the legal position and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. vs. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) and various other authorities, held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to re- open the assessment. It was further contended that when a regular assessment is made in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on applica…