Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHURCHGATE vs. M/S NNM SECURITIES PVT. LTD., FORT

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-4(2)(1) M/S. Nnm Securities P. Ltd. Room No. 644 1111 Stock Exchange Tower Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dalal Street, Fort M.K. Road Mumbai-400 023. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaacn8070G Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 154/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17)

…i) For reopening the case, the primary condition is that there should not be simple change of opinion and some new material should come into the possession of Revenue in view of the decisions of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Cartini India Ltd. 314 ITR 275 (Bom), where four years period elapsed. In the 4 M/s. NNM Securities P. Ltd. impugned case in hand, the issue relating to setting off of loss, alleged to be speculative is not permitted to set off against business income was already dealt by earlier AO for which appellant filed evidence where no addition was made. iii) The Revenue reopened the a…

R R PAINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…to which a reference is to be found and the entire basis for reopening the assessment is the disclosure which has been made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. In Cartini India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom.)], a Division Bench of this Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. The principal which has been enunciated in Cartini…

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…to which a reference is to be found and the entire basis for reopening the assessment is the disclosure which has been made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. In Cartini India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom.)], a Division Bench of this Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. The principal which has been enunciated in Cartini…

MERCK PERFORMANCE MATERIALS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(2)(2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

…ecords. There is no new material to which a reference is to be found and the entire basis for reopening the assessment is the disclosure which has been made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. In Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. The principal which has been enunciated in Cartini…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…t records. There is no new material to which a reference is to be found and the entire basis for reopening the assessment is the disclosure which has been made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. In Cartini India Lid. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275 (Bom.l. a Division Bench of this Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. The principal which has been enunciated in Carlini…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA CONSTRUCTION (DOMBIVALI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Central Circle-7(3) M/S Lodha Contruction Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. (Dombivali),216, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Off. Dr.E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No. Aabfl3409M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R Revenue By : Ms. Aarti Sathe, A.R Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021

…barred-where same facts were before the Assessing Officer and he had considered very issues, assessment could not be reopened." ITA No. 7041/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 7 DCIT, CC-7(3) Vs. M/s Lodha Construction (Dombivali) (in) Cartini India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 314 ITR 275 (Bombay High Court) in which it has been held that even where reassessment is sought to be done within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, there must be reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. (iv) In the case of Motilal R Todi vs ACIT…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

…conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment. The Apex Court cautioned that in the garb of reopening an assessment review should not take place. This court following the Apex Court in the matter of Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. C.I.T. [2009] 314 ITR 275/ 179 Taxman 157 (Bom.) has also held that even where reassessment is sought to be done within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, there must be reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. Therefore, where facts have been viewed during the…

URVISH B. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…he power to reassess but no power to review his own orders under the garb of reopening. The ld.AR strongly relied on the series of decisions in defense of his argument: - a. CIT v. Kelvinator India [320 ITR 561 (SC)] b. Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom).] c. Jal Hotels Co. Limited v. Asst. DIT [(2009) 24 DTR 37 (Del.)] (18) Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on the ground of change of opinion the reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio. (19) Lastly the Ld.AR argued that there is no live link to the material relied upon by the Assessing Off…

ITO 33(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. URVISH B. MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…he power to reassess but no power to review his own orders under the garb of reopening. The ld.AR strongly relied on the series of decisions in defense of his argument: - a. CIT v. Kelvinator India [320 ITR 561 (SC)] b. Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom).] c. Jal Hotels Co. Limited v. Asst. DIT [(2009) 24 DTR 37 (Del.)] (18) Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on the ground of change of opinion the reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio. (19) Lastly the Ld.AR argued that there is no live link to the material relied upon by the Assessing Off…

AMOLIKA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -9(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

…gments. i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) iv) 11 I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 Amolika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. CartiniIndia Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) v) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC). Furthermore, we observe that the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere speaks that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the AY 2007- 08. Accordingly, issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble…