CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd.

275 ITR 451High Court2005#3506 most cited

What is CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are invalid unless the Assessing Officer proves there was a failure to disclose material facts, not just a change of opinion.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. · section 147 · reassessment · change of opinion · failure to disclose material facts · beyond four years · limitation

Also reported as

186 Taxmann 296

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)Section 10BSection 135 of Companies Act

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsicdssection 32(1)section 21section 45revenue expendituremercantile system of accountingsection 32section 37(1)capital expendituresection 37section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary vs. Shri Vazhyiel House Narayanan Kutty Menon, Bellary

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Late Shri Vazhyel House of Income Tax, Narayanan Kutty Menon Central Circle 1(1), By L/Rs Bengaluru. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Menon Shri Urathe Krishna Prasad Smt. Febitha Kandan Kulangara Ms. Roshini Kulangara Urathe Ms. Meghna Kulangara Urathe Shri Pramod Menon Smt. Padma Vijayan Ms. Kangana Pramod Ms. Sanjana Pramod 6, 14th Ward, KHB Colony, Sandur. Bellary Dist. PAN: AGXPM 5124G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by :…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Cisco Systems

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

…; Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by t…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013–14 M/s Veerabhadrappa The Asst. Commissioner of Sangappa & Co., Income Tax, No.2/138, Bellary Road, Circle – 1, Sandur-583 119. Vs. Bellary. PAN – AACFV 4029 J. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chythanya K.K, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT Date of Hearing : 11-09-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08-12-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 22/03/2019…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri vs. The Jalpaiguri Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jalpaiguri

Appeal is allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

…t was pronounced that interest on NPA Asset does not accrue as income to an assessee. The contention of your appellant also draws support from the following judicial pronouncements of different Courts and Tribunals, like a) CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd [(2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. b) CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd [293 ITR 357 (Mad)). c) CIT v KICM Investments (Cal) [310 ITR 4] wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. d) CIT v Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [,46 ITR 144 (SC)] e) TCL Finance Ltd v ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.). f) The Durga Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd v Department of Income Tax [Appeal 511 Vijag Tribunal v…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri vs. The Jalpaiguri Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jalpaiguri

Appeal is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

…t was pronounced that interest on NPA Asset does not accrue as income to an assessee. The contention of your appellant also draws support from the following judicial pronouncements of different Courts and Tribunals, like a) CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd [(2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. b) CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd [293 ITR 357 (Mad)). c) CIT v KICM Investments (Cal) [310 ITR 4] wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. d) CIT v Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [,46 ITR 144 (SC)] e) TCL Finance Ltd v ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.). f) The Durga Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd v Department of Income Tax [Appeal 511 Vijag Tribunal v…

ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(5), Chennai vs. C.Rajalakshmy, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2254/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 08.02.2018For Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68

…the issue in favour of assessee relied in the decisions of the cases, CIT CO No.186 /Chny/2017 vs. Bilahari Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 299 ITR 1-SC, CIT vs. Sakhi Finance Ltd. reported in 292 ITR 2321 Madras, CIT vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 451 Madras, wherein the following ratio was laid down “The assessee is free to follow any recognized system of accounting and the Revenue cannot change or tamper with the method of Accounting followed by the assessee unless the Revenue is able to concretely prove that any real income has escaped from the net of taxation.” Aggrieved by the order of t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Integrated Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for ays 2003-04 & 04-05 are

ITA 1839/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 145

…ment sake that there wasa change in the method of accounting, the department will have to prove that the change of accounting policy resulted in tax evasion. For this he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v . Annamalai Finance Ltd, 275 ITR 451 (Mad) and CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd, 319 ITR 196 (Mad). In the instant case, the department is not in a position to prove that duetothe alleged change of accounting method adopted by the appellant, the department suffered any loss or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. On the contrary, by offering the entire receipts as income fo…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Integrated Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for ays 2003-04 & 04-05 are

ITA 1838/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 145

…ment sake that there wasa change in the method of accounting, the department will have to prove that the change of accounting policy resulted in tax evasion. For this he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v . Annamalai Finance Ltd, 275 ITR 451 (Mad) and CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd, 319 ITR 196 (Mad). In the instant case, the department is not in a position to prove that duetothe alleged change of accounting method adopted by the appellant, the department suffered any loss or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. On the contrary, by offering the entire receipts as income fo…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…sset in a lease agreement. CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CITv. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issu…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…sset in a lease agreement. CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CITv. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issu…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Integrated Finance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 9

ITA 1430/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1430/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2005-2006 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Integrated Finance Income Tax Company Ltd, Company Circle II(3) R-10, II floor, Chennai 600 034 Prem Nagar Colony, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AAACI 0876M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. V.…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement (CIT v. A. M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP) ; CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69 (Delhi) ; CIT v. M. G. F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation, it was exemplified:…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/371/2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement (CIT v. A. M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP) ; CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69 (Delhi) ; CIT v. M. G. F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation, it was exemplified:…

M/S. I.C.D.S. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

C.A. No.-003282-003282 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 32

…ese cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the 4 (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP) 5 (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del) 6 (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del.) 7 (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad) 27 Page 28 JUDGMENT asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by the manufacturer – whether they were issued in the name of the lessee or the lessor. For the view we have taken above, we deem it unnecessary to go into the…