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.

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 191)

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…and computation of income. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation in view of proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 13. The above view of ours has been already settled in the following case laws: • Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO: [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) • CIT v. Foramer France: [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) • CIT vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) • BLB Limited vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) • D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) • CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 495 (Del) • JSRS Udyog Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) • Vatik…

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e is also placed on: ANS Law Associates, in ITA No. 5181/M/2012 dated 5.12.14 (Mum) DCIT vs. Shree G. Selva Kumar” in ITA No.868/Bang/2009 decided on 22.10.10 Aarti Raman vs. DCIT” in ITA No.245/Bang/2012 decided on 05.10.12. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) analyzed the Phrase "reason to believe" and observed that "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn.” Indian Oil Corpn. v ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) Manikonda Venkata Narasimham v CIT (1960) 39 ITR 575 (AP) Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers v IAC (1995) 212…

Polta vs. Ky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…sed, the onus stands discharged and it is not for assessee to tell the assessing officer, what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn by him on these facts. This is the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191. 14.3 In the light of allegation recorded, it is manifest that the requirement of first proviso are not met for multiple reasons namely, the allegation of failure to disclose facts of material I.T.A No.5081/Del/2019 18 nature is non-descript and obscure and is merely an iteration of statutory language; it is not known what primary facts of subst…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…years from end of relevant assessment years and where the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material facts, reopening beyond four years is bad-in-law. Reliance was placed mainly on following decisions: (i). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [(1961) 41 ITR 191] (Supreme Court) (ii). Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 452 (Bombay) (iii). Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (107 taxmann.com 284) (Bombay) (iv). PCIT v. Punjab and Sind Bank (108 taxmann.com 351) (Delhi High Court) (v). [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in (108 taxmann.com 352)] (vi). Hindustan Lever v. R.B.…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…years from end of relevant assessment years and where the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material facts, reopening beyond four years is bad-in-law. Reliance was placed mainly on following decisions: (i). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [(1961) 41 ITR 191] (Supreme Court) (ii). Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 452 (Bombay) (iii). Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (107 taxmann.com 284) (Bombay) (iv). PCIT v. Punjab and Sind Bank (108 taxmann.com 351) (Delhi High Court) (v). [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in (108 taxmann.com 352)] (vi). Hindustan Lever v. R.B.…

Cgs-Cimb Securities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal ground discussed above

ITA 2573/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2573/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Cgs- Cimb Securities Cit (Appeals), Nfac Mumbai, (India) P. Ltd. Mumbai. Commissioner Of Dbs Business Centre, Dbs बिधम/ Income Tax (Appeals), House, Prescott Road, Fort Vs. Nfac Centre, Delhi Mumbai 400001

For Respondent: Shri.Dilip K. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…that simply disclosing it in the notes to Balance Sheet is not enough and in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act there is no discussion regarding computer software. As held by the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 that there is no doubt that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the Assessing Officer lies on the assessee. To meet the possible contentions that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the I…

Society for Appllied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…or Applied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research activities. Therefore, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose clearly about the object of the assessee. In this regard he relied on the decision of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)] and Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. v. DCIT [439 ITR 168 (Bom)]. 13. Ld. AR submitted his second proposition that Assessing Officer has to disclose what information was not submitted by the assessee. In this regard he relied on the Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra). In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 18 of the Paper Book wherein…

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry in regard to the issue at hand. Therefore, the proceedings had validly been initiated under section 147, read with section 148, in my view as well. The Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) analysed the Phrase "reason to believe" and observed that It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn." It is not for somebody else to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. In determining whether commencement of…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S, Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P)Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 870/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. &

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as the AO has not satisfied that the assessee has failed to disclose the material facts truly and fully ... Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside." 4 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 ii Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) iii. In Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v ITO [19777 106 ITR 1 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ... The duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the ITO of the account books or other evidence from which materia…

Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 6652/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaairads Limited Vs. Dcit, 4624/ 18, Ansari Road, Circle-2(1), Darya Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aaaca5793R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ort that on the part of assessee there was failure in making a true and complete disclosure and the satisfaction recorded is not sustainable. 5.3 In support of aforesaid contentions the Ld. AR relied following case laws : i. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. V. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) ii. PCIT V. Superior Films Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) iii. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Light Carts P. Ltd. 404 ITR 574 (Allahabad HC) iv. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay HC) v. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. [TS-29-HC- 2012(Del.) dated 21.08.2012 (Delhi HC) vi. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 75/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 224/RPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 223/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

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

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

…hat was the material fact which the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly necessary for assessment. In this regard reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) and the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gauhati in the case of Assam Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in [2006] 150 Taxman 571 (Gauhati). 6.2. Thirdly, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that losses incurred in derivatives cannot be treated as speculative in nature and the same is now a settle law as held by the Hon'ble…

M/S. Seastem Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 301/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aahcs9428G

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

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

…he material facts necessary for assessment. In this regard we find support and guidance form the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case Vodafone West Ltd vs. ACIT (supra) where it was held as under: In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held and observed that to confer jurisdiction on assessee to issue notice off reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years, two conditions are required to be simultaneously satisfied. Such conditions are that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…le escaped assessment which is a penny stock. 5. Law with regard to, what is meant by "full" and "true" disclosure, has been succinctly laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Callcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191, wherein, Hon’ble Court held as follows : 8, 9, 10 and 11. "8. …..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 assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material, and nece…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…le escaped assessment which is a penny stock. 5. Law with regard to, what is meant by "full" and "true" disclosure, has been succinctly laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Callcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191, wherein, Hon’ble Court held as follows : 8, 9, 10 and 11. "8. …..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 assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material, and nece…

M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 336/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh Sandip Bhandare, C.AFor Respondent: Sh Mayur Kamble, Sr. D.R

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

…assessment stage itself and had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the said assessment. In support of his submissions, the Learned A.R. relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. V. ITO 41 ITR 191 which aptly apply to the present case of the assessee firm. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under : "Does the duty, however, extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing aut…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…n the formation of the belief. It was further explained that Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 28 of 58 this aspect is justiciable issue to be examined by the Court. t. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. ITO and Another [41 ITR 191] has held that : “The expression "reason to believe" postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith : it cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer: the forum of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is…

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…ose 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. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta [41 ITR 191] xxx xxx xxx 15 AIR 1967 SC 523 12 4. ………….. The earlier stage of the proceeding for recording the reasons of the Income Tax Officer and for obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner are administrative in character and are not quasi-judicial. The scheme of Section 34 of the Act is that, if the conditions of the main section are satisfied a…

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

What is Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

Polta vs. Ky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

Cgs-Cimb Securities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Mumbai

Society for Appllied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S, Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P)Ltd, Chennai

Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

M/S. Seastem Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji.

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia