Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Deputy CIT

266 ITR 566High Court2004#14253 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10B Section 139 Section 142 Section 142(1)Section 150(1)

Issues it is cited on

beyond four years material facts necessary for assessment mere change of opinion kelvinator change of opinion escapement of income reason to believe reopening of assessment revenue expenditure reassessment proceedings section 143(2)section 148

Judgments citing Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Deputy CIT

SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 22, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyond the period of four years." (e) Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Dy. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 123/[2004] 266 ITR 566 (Bom.) "8. The Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year and in view of the judgment of this court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Gajanand Meena, Deputy CIT (No. 2)[2001] 251 ITR 416, the Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond…

PURNAGIRI RICE MILLS,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the facts and law held as under: - “16. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd.'s case (supra) has been considered and explained by two Division Benches of this court in Caprihans India Ltd. v, Tarun Seem, Dy. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 566, and Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 200. In the former decision, the Division Bench held that the petition which was filed by the assessee challenging the notice could not be dismissed as the reasons subsequently disclosed by the Assessing Officer show that there was no prima facie finding that the assessee had failed to Page 7 o…

THARMARAJ GOPI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

…umbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyond the period of four years." (e) Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Dy. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman 123/[2004] 266 ITR 566 (Bom.) "8. The Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year and in view of the judgment of this court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Gajanand Meena, Deputy CIT (No. 2)[2001] 251 ITR 416, the Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond f…

NAGPUR POWER & INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Page No. | 6 M/s. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd c) That the C.I.T.(A) has erred in not following the following decisions:- 1) IPCA Laboratories Vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416,419 (Bom) 2) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 266 ITR 566,572 (Bom) 3) Grindwell Norton Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 673, 676 (Bom) 4) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332, 334 (Bom) 5) Supreme Treves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bom) 6) Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 9)…

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…for assessment. e) Similar view has been consistently taken in the following decisions: > IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (2001) (251 ITR 416) (Bom); > Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (266 ITR 196) (Bom); 11 > Caprihans India Ltd. vs. DCIT (266 ITR 566) (Bom); > Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). f) Further, attention is invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being jurisdictional High Court in our case, in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. K. J. Rao and Another (268 ITR 203) (Bom), wherein the assessee had erroneously claimed depreciation at the rate of 40% ins…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…notices and consequently the order justifying reasons recorded were unsustainable.” While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court also considered the following cases:- i. Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Deputy CIT [2004] 266 ITR 566 (Bom) ii. CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC) iii. CIT v. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) iv. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 384 (Bom) v. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC) vi. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 1 RC 208 (SC) vii. Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Jagdish…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148