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

DCIT-191, Mumbai vs. Bhavin P Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4689/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143

…ble before AO for reopening the case. This aspect has been brought out very lucidly in several decisions and the earliest of such decisions is that of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191. The sum and substance of the decision of the Constitution Bench is that the Assessing Officer is only entitled to reopen the assessment, but he cannot review an assessment in the sense that there cannot be a rethinking or different opinion on the same material, which was the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. In this case alr…

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…losure of material facts is with respect to 'primary facts' only and does not extend to suggesting inferences of fact and law that can be drawn from such disclosure. Reference was made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO: 41 ITR 191 (SC). as reiterated in New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT: 424 ITR 607 (SC). Reliance was also placed on ACIT vs. Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd.: [2023] 452 ITR 280 (SC). 25. As regards the argument of ld. DR about failure to not disclose "concessions" being allowed by the appellant to Honda, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the reasons rec…

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…- 1) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New Delhi Television Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 116 taxmann.com 151 (SC) 2) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) 3) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Gujarat) 4) Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Anil Hassan and Gajwani vs. Income-tax Officer 223 Taxmann 126 (Guj) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 5 of 9 5) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the…

Krishna Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4292/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. 508, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Pan: Aabck-5678-G ---- Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 10(1)(2), Mumbai Room No.651, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…f India (supra), wherein it was held as under:- “10. A Division Bench of this Court in Aroni Commercials Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 2(1)4 has held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee 3 ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 4 [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 (Bombay) Shivgan 9/10 412-oswp-243-2022.doc has replied to it, it follows that 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its sat…

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…pose, to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year. Both these conditions are conditions precedent to be satisfied. See, in this connection, the observations of this court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 . ** ** ** I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd. As is well-settled now by the several authorities of this court and of several High Courts, there must be materials to come to the conclusion that there was 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…mation of any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. requisite belief. 6.5 Hon'ble Supreme Cour 6.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd t in another case Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd v ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 201 v ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to 02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: investigate the belief of the AO has held as under:- "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…mation of any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. requisite belief. 6.5 Hon'ble Supreme Cour 6.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd t in another case Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd v ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 201 v ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to 02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: investigate the belief of the AO has held as under:- "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section…

M/S. Panjos Builders Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 4o

…hed as there was no allegation that there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. For this purpose, he relied on the following judgements: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) b) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC). c) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2013) 215 taxman 495 (Del HC). d) CIT Vs Mysore Cements (2013) 355 ITR 136 (Kar) 5. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. AO has recorded that assessee has not duly deducted the TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As such, he reopened the assessmen…

Springer Verlag Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3660/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…id. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC). (ii). ACIT vs. Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of…

Sprnger Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 645/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…id. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC). (ii). ACIT vs. Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 644/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…id. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC). (ii). ACIT vs. Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 643/DEL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…id. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC). (ii). ACIT vs. Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of…

Vilson Roofing Products Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

ITA 956/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M G Jasnani [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 68

…isite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief.‟‟ 12.5 Hon‟ble Supreme Court in another case Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd v ITQ (1961) 41 ITR 191 201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: “All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prims facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure of material facts. Whether these groun…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 139 & 140/Coch/2020 (Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2011-12) Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(1) Appollo Tyres Ltd. 4th Floor, C.R. Building 3rd Floor, Areekal Mansion I.S. Press Road, Near Manorama Junction vs. Kochi – 682018 Panampalliy Nagar Kochi 682036 [PAN: AAACA6990Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Appollo Tyres Ltd. Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(1) 3rd Floor, Areekal Mansion 4th Floor, C.R. Building, Ne…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 139 & 140/Coch/2020 (Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2011-12) Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(1) Appollo Tyres Ltd. 4th Floor, C.R. Building 3rd Floor, Areekal Mansion I.S. Press Road, Near Manorama Junction vs. Kochi – 682018 Panampalliy Nagar Kochi 682036 [PAN: AAACA6990Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Appollo Tyres Ltd. Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(1) 3rd Floor, Areekal Mansion 4th Floor, C.R. Building, Ne…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 54/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…es not extend beyond true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. Reliance is placed on:  Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v ITO [(1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]  CIT v Usha International Ltd [(2012) 384 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB)] (para 10) No adverse opinion can be drawn merely because AO is silent on the issue in the assessment order Reliance is placed on: “Merely because he did express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessmen…

Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 33/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…es not extend beyond true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. Reliance is placed on:  Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v ITO [(1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]  CIT v Usha International Ltd [(2012) 384 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB)] (para 10) No adverse opinion can be drawn merely because AO is silent on the issue in the assessment order Reliance is placed on: “Merely because he did express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessmen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 171/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…es not extend beyond true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. Reliance is placed on:  Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v ITO [(1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]  CIT v Usha International Ltd [(2012) 384 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB)] (para 10) No adverse opinion can be drawn merely because AO is silent on the issue in the assessment order Reliance is placed on: “Merely because he did express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessmen…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 169/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…es not extend beyond true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. Reliance is placed on:  Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v ITO [(1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]  CIT v Usha International Ltd [(2012) 384 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB)] (para 10) No adverse opinion can be drawn merely because AO is silent on the issue in the assessment order Reliance is placed on: “Merely because he did express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessmen…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 99/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…es not extend beyond true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. Reliance is placed on:  Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v ITO [(1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]  CIT v Usha International Ltd [(2012) 384 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB)] (para 10) No adverse opinion can be drawn merely because AO is silent on the issue in the assessment order Reliance is placed on: “Merely because he did express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessmen…