How many judgments cite Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr.?

34 judgments on BharatTax cite Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr. (314 ITR 275), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 57, Section 139.

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

314 ITR 275High Court2009#3470 most cited

What is Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr. authority for?

Reopening an assessment based on a mere change of opinion, without any tangible material, is invalid. The Assessing Officer cannot withdraw an issue after considering the assessee's reply and then re-open the case on the same grounds.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · mere change of opinion · tangible material · reopening of assessment · income escaping assessment · full and true disclosure · reason to believe

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 57 Section 139 Section 43(5)Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosure kelvinator mere change of opinion change of opinion section 57 tangible material income escaping assessment reopening of assessment reason to believe escapement of income section 151 reassessment proceedings

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

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6847/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank Of Acit-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaace2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank of ACIT-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 PAN No. AAACE2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date of pronouncement : 09/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant ass…

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

…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 o…

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

Biddle Sawyer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, as far as Ground of appeal no

ITA 5443/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…een entertained only on the basis of the material which was already available with the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. Notably, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cartini India Ltd. vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, 314 ITR 275 (Bom.) observed that reopening of assessment based on material already considered in adjudication would amount to reviewing the assessment order by re-appreciating the material on record, which is not contemplated u/s 147 of the Act. In our view, in the context of the present controversy, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to base his be…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…ion. i) CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1)(Del)(FB) affirmed in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) ii) CIT v Usha International (348 ITR 485)(Del)(FB) iii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) iv) Cartini India Limited v ACIT (314 ITR 275) (Bom.) v) CIT v Prima Paper & Engg. Ltd. (364 ITR 222) (Bom.) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 361)(Bom.) ix) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v ACIT (377 ITR 405)(Bom.) x) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom.) xi) Rabo…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6647/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80

…mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening the assessment. The ratio of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Paul Brothers (supra) cited by the appellant is also on similar lines. 6.9 In yet another case of Cartini India Limited, 314 ITR 275, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that assessment cannot be re- opened, if it is based on the material, which were already on record. In that case, the assessee had claimed entire expenditure pertaining to "Project Launch" as revenue expenditure even though in its books, the same was spread over a period of three years. Similarly, the assessee had…

Sh. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Mitali Madhusmita, CIT DR

Section 143Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…en in respect of period of less then 4 years the authorities under the Act have to strictly satisfy the conditions which permit them to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the said Act. This Court in the matter of Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275/ 179 Taxman 157 has taken a view that reopening of assessment on the basis of material already on record at the time assessment was completed cannot be the basis of reopening the assessment even within the normal period of 4 years. 6. In the present case it is not disputed that during the course of assessment proceeding under Section 143(2) and (…

M/S Om Welfare Society, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…td V. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 [SC] 5 Om Welfare Society -Union of India V. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 [SC] -Parveen P Bharuch V. DCIT 348 ITR 325 [Bombay] [2012] -Asian Paint Ltd V. DCIT 308 ITR 195 [Bombay] [2009] -Carntin India Ltd V. Addl. CIT 314 ITR 275 [Bombay] [2009] -CIT V. Nirma Chemicals Works P Ltd 309 ITR 67 [Guj] [2009] The Assessing Officer decline the objection merely on the ground that this proviso is applicable only in those cases where the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year has expired and however, there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to d…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…Todi, ITA No. 2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) dated 22nd September, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) viii) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC) ix) Asteriods Trading & Investment P. Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom HC) x) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Orient Craft Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) 8 M/s. Lupin Limited xi) M/s. GTL Limited vs ACIT, ITA No. 6971/Mum/2010 (Mum Trib) dated 2nd January, 2015 xii) Prashant Joshi vs…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…(Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens Information System Ltd..v. ACIT The assessee company submitted that it had truly and fully disclosed all the materials while filing its return of income and during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, which material had been…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…challenged the reopening as bad in law and illegal. The assessee company further relied on the following decisions:- i) Asian Paints Ltd v. DCIT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) ii) Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) iii) Cartini India Limited v. ACIT 314 ITR 275 Bom) iv) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) v) Rallies India Limited v. ACIT 232 CTR 143 (Bom) vi) Mitsui Marubheni Corpn v. DCIT 298 ITR (AT) 283 vii) IPCA Laqboratories Limited v. Jagdanand Meena DCIT, 251 ITR 416 (Bom). The assessee company contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disc…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 115WSection 115w

…nclusion 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. CIT reported in 314 ITR 275 has also held that even where assessment is ought 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 original proceeding and an…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3386/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 195Section 200Section 40

…here must be reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and such reason to believe should not M/s. Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. 15 be on account of mere change of opinion. In this context she relied upon the following case laws:- i) Cartini India Ltd., 314 ITR 275 (SC); and ii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s DCIT, 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) Finally, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted to put the controversy at rest the assessee applied before the Department for issuance of no deduction certificate in respect of commission payment to non-resident agent and the Department being satisfied that such payments are n…

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5435/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP & SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA No.5434&5435/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year :2004-05 & 2005-06) LIC Housing Finance Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Mumbai 2nd Floor, Bombay Life Building, 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023 PAN No. :AAACL 1799 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Jain Assessee by : Shri H.P.Mahajani Date of Hearing : 14/08/2015 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2015 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2004-0…