CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

79 ITR 582Supreme Court of India1971#1533 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhanji Lavji authority for?

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed. The assessee is not obligated to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law, nor can reassessment commence if the AO drew a wrong legal inference from disclosed facts.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhanji Lavji · 79 ITR 582 · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · reassessment proceedings · full and true disclosure · primary facts · duty to disclose law · wrong legal inference · 1961 Act · 1922 Act

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 149Section 150Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 150(2)true and full disclosuresection 147(a)section 33(4)section 245hasection 150section 10(2)section 34(1)full and true disclosuresection 110test of enduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

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)

…s”. In addition to the aforesaid decision, it has been held in the following judicial pronouncements that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and ab-initio void: a) CIT v. Rao Tahkur Narayan Singh (56 ITR 234) (SC) b) CIT v. BhanjiLavji (79 ITR 582) c) Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (222 ITR 68) d) CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (263 ITR 180) e) ACIT v. Champdany Industries Ltd. (95 ITD 169) (Kol) 7 (g) Reliance is also placed on the decision Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami (ITA 112/2014) (TS-166-HC-2014-Del), wherein it has been held as under: “As to wh…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…during the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO was in conscious view that no deemed rental should be taxed on unsold offices held as stock in trade. In this regard the reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT V/s Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) Held that:-Reassessment under s. 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act—Full and true disclosure—In original assessment, all primary facts were disclosed—It was stated that payments were received by cheques and transferred to Porbandar—ITO had passed an order in effect holding that assessee had no income in British India chargeable to tax—He could not now see…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…during the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO was in conscious view that no deemed rental should be taxed on unsold offices held as stock in trade. In this regard the reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT V/s Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) Held that:-Reassessment under s. 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act—Full and true disclosure—In original assessment, all primary facts were disclosed—It was stated that payments were received by cheques and transferred to Porbandar—ITO had passed an order in effect holding that assessee had no income in British India chargeable to tax—He could not now see…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…did not make full and true disclosure, the reopening of assessment would be a case of change of opinion. In support of such a contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji [reported in (1971) 79 ITR 582]. 9. It was contended by the appellant - assessee that where a deduction was considered and allowed, the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 of the Act amounted to change of opinion. The Page 10 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 appellant – assessee pointed out that they had been granted approval by the Authority as early as 17.4.…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…did not make full and true disclosure, the reopening of assessment would be a case of change of opinion. In support of such a contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji [reported in (1971) 79 ITR 582]. 9. It was contended by the appellant - assessee that where a deduction was considered and allowed, the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 of the Act amounted to change of opinion. The Page 10 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 appellant – assessee pointed out that they had been granted approval by the Authority as early as 17.4.…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

ITA 4277/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36

…change of opinion. e) CIT Vs. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (56 ITR 234) (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a mere change in opinion without any information that income has escaped assessment, does not warrant re-opening. f) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582) (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled, on mere change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. g) ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) (SC) wherein the Hon'ble court has held that having second thought on t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…ses for the proposition that "assessment cannot be reopened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji [79 ITR 582 (SC)] 2) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Lt…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 192/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…ses for the proposition that "assessment cannot be reopened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji [79 ITR 582 (SC)] 2) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Lt…

Nava Bharat Ventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhassessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

…essment is completed and therefore reopening of assessment is only due to mere change of opinion and that too beyond the time limit as specified in the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act which is bad in law. We rely on the following cases. CIT vs. Bhaviji Lavji (79 ITR 582(SC)) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)) JCIT vs. George Williamson(Assam) Ltd. (258 ITR 126(Gauhati)), etc. Page 5 of 7 ITA No 384 of 2018 Nav Bharat Ventures Ltd We therefore submit that since all details are available on record to the then Assessing Officer, there is no occasion for reopening our assessment for the A. Y…

Smt Ruchika Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…that reopening was not valid. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. M/s Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 264 (Raj) (iii) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) (iv) DCIT Vs Purolator (2012) 343 ITR 155 (Del) (v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom) (vi) Desai Bros Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bom) (vii) Bhot Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom) (viii) CIT (Addl.) Vs. IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del) (ix) CIT Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Ma…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Suman Masciarelli, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for the purposes of statistics

ITA 6557/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Smt. Suman Masciarelli, Circle Gurgaon, International J-9/6, Dlf Pgase-Ii, Taxation, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Alqpm7254F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Krishnan &V.Raja KumarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…law and fact and also the propriety in making the additions. Learned CIT(A) by way of impugned order held that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); CIT vs BhanjiLavji, Porbandar, 79 ITR 582 (SC); ITO vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur, 97 ITR 2399 (SC) and also other decisions held that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. AO is void ab initio and hence, the impugned assessment order was quashed. 5. Revenue is, therefore, before us in this appeal challenging the quashing of the re-assessment pa…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2277/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S. Dehiya-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…ied.In our opinion,amended provisions of section 147 has not changed the position-the section stipulates that if there is no fresh material the re-opening would not be justified.Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanaji Lavaji(79 ITR 582). Here,we would like to refer to the matter of Sahjanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd.(397 ITR 607),of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.In the matter of the assessee was in the business of manufacturing specialised medical equipment.For the AY.2010-11, the AO made several additions and disallowances while passing order u/s.143(3) of the Act.Subsequentl…

The Deputy. CIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Efftronics Systems Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

…d by interpreting the provisions applicable in the subsequent years for the purpose of reopening. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail in para No.6.3.2 and relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 and ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Bharkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) and held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. For ready reference, we extract relevant paragraph of the CIT(A) from 6.3 to 6.3.2 as follows: “6.3 As regards the legal issue of validity of re-opening of assessment for Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, it is noted that…

The Deputy. CIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Efftronics Systems Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

…d by interpreting the provisions applicable in the subsequent years for the purpose of reopening. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail in para No.6.3.2 and relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 and ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Bharkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) and held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. For ready reference, we extract relevant paragraph of the CIT(A) from 6.3 to 6.3.2 as follows: “6.3 As regards the legal issue of validity of re-opening of assessment for Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, it is noted that…

The Deputy. CIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Efftronics Systems Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

…d by interpreting the provisions applicable in the subsequent years for the purpose of reopening. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail in para No.6.3.2 and relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 and ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Bharkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) and held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. For ready reference, we extract relevant paragraph of the CIT(A) from 6.3 to 6.3.2 as follows: “6.3 As regards the legal issue of validity of re-opening of assessment for Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, it is noted that…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Efftronics Systems Private Limited., Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 551/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

…d by interpreting the provisions applicable in the subsequent years for the purpose of reopening. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail in para No.6.3.2 and relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 and ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Bharkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) and held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. For ready reference, we extract relevant paragraph of the CIT(A) from 6.3 to 6.3.2 as follows: “6.3 As regards the legal issue of validity of re-opening of assessment for Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, it is noted that…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…relevant to the decision on the question Dixit Processor before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or i…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full disclosure or i…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Anil Bihani 5 Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or true one. It may be a full…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…fore the AO copies of corresponding sale bills and chart showing bill-wise purchases in respect of the above two parties and the corresponding sales. We refer here to page 36-39 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed before the Tribunal. In CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), it has been held that an assessment cannot be reopened only because of change of opinion. In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), it is held that (i) after substitution of section 147 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, concept of ‘change of opinion’ must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power b…