Cedric De Souza Faria v. DCIT

400 ITR 30High Court2018#20781 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35(1)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

stpi unitconvertible foreign exchangesection 35(1)(ii)section 35(1)fresh tangible materialfull and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentsection 144c(3)kelvinatorsection 10aacomputer software

Judgments citing Cedric De Souza Faria v. DCIT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…g proceedings are liable to be quashed resulting in the impugned reassessment order as bad in law. Accordingly, we hold so, finding our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Cedric De Souza Faria vs. DCIT [2018] 400 ITR 30 (Bom), wherein it was held that- "What the proviso to Section 147 postulates is material which was necessary for assessment, which the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose. There is no clear statement in the reasons as to which material the Petitioner failed to disclose. It is not enough that in the reasons supplied, there is one line to th…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…g proceedings are liable to be quashed resulting in the impugned reassessment order as bad in law. Accordingly, we hold so, finding our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Cedric De Souza Faria vs. DCIT [2018] 400 ITR 30 (Bom), wherein it was held that- "What the proviso to Section 147 postulates is material which was necessary for assessment, which the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose. There is no clear statement in the reasons as to which material the Petitioner failed to disclose. It is not enough that in the reasons supplied, there is one line to th…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…g proceedings are liable to be quashed resulting in the impugned reassessment order as bad in law. Accordingly, we hold so, finding our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Cedric De Souza Faria vs. DCIT [2018] 400 ITR 30 (Bom), wherein it was held that- "What the proviso to Section 147 postulates is material which was necessary for assessment, which the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose. There is no clear statement in the reasons as to which material the Petitioner failed to disclose. It is not enough that in the reasons supplied, there is one line to th…

Khandesh Builders Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg & Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…issions, the ld.AR of the Assessee also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mrs. Praveen P Bharucha vs. Dy.CIT 348 ITR 325 (BOM) and Cedric De Souza Faria vs. Dy.CIT 400 ITR 30 (BOM). 7. The main contention of the ld.AR is that during the original assessment proceedings, all the documents asked by the Assessing Officer (AO) were submitted by the assessee. The ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of the notice under section 142 of the Act dated 23.06.2010 issued by the AO containing eleven (11) questions. The relevant…

Cedric De Souza Faria v. DCIT (400 ITR 30) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax