CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

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

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

…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…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

…peal) considered the decision in 31 Infotech Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom.), Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 614 (Cal.) and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 221 ITR 492 and Income Tax Officer vs Bhanji Lav Ji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (Del.) held that reopening is correct. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we are expected to first analyze the provision of section 1…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

…peal) considered the decision in 31 Infotech Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom.), Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 614 (Cal.) and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 221 ITR 492 and Income Tax Officer vs Bhanji Lav Ji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (Del.) held that reopening is correct. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we are expected to first analyze the provision of section 1…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

…to reopen the assessment 34 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’. One must keep in mind, the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Bhanji Lavaji 79 ITR 582 (SC) held that mere change of opinion cannot form the basis of reassessment. In Shri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 221 ITR 538 (SC), it was held that the power conferred upon the ITO by section 147 and 148 are not unbridled one. Identical ratio was laid down in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs ITO 114 ITR 404 (AP) supports our view. The Hon’ble Calcutta High…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

…/s 143(3) on 26.12.2008 and the assessee was granted deduction u/s 80GGB of the Act. In support of his submission that the re-opening is invalid for various reasons, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. CIT v Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) 2. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) 3. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007…

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6647/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) ACIT 2(3), Mumbai Vs M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AAACT4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri H.N. Singh Respondent by Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr Advocate Date of hearing : 05-12-2016 Date of order : 23-12-2016 O R D E R Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mum…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Futura Polyesters Ltd. D C I T – 5(1)(2) Paragon Condominium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 3Rd Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Mumbai 400020 Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaaci3404K Appellant Respondent

…ve that full disclosure was made in respect of the disallowance We submit that a mere change of opinion cannot lead to re- opening of Assessment as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd 187 Taxman 312, CIT Vs. Bhanji Lalji 79 ITR 582 (SC) and ITO Vs. Nawambir Barkatally Khan Bahadur reported in 97 ITR 239 (SC). 4 M/s. Futura Polyesters Ltd. The Judicial decisions cited by the A.O. on page no 4 of the Assessment Order are not applicable in the facts of our case, because the A.O. had examined the disallowance u/s 14A and disallowed the same. In this connection, we rely on the S…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

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)

…nal Taxation), Dehradun [2011] 12 taxmann.com 493(Uttarakhand) - CIT v. Manak Shoes Co. (P.) Ltd. [2011] 200 Taxmann 133 (Del.): 2011)11 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) - CIT v. Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 342 (Del.) - CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) - ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat AIi Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC) - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Others (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) - CIT v. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) - M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) - Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v.. ITO [2009] 318 ITR 295 (Del.) - CIT v. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2…

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG-4(2)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3789/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95) Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-4(2), बनाम/ 202, Maker Tower E, Mumbai Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Neil Phillip

…ord. The disclosure per the return is, in the facts of the case, rather inconsistent with the material on record. The Hon’ble Court in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom), relied upon by the Revenue, following CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), held as under: “Full and true disclosures must mean what the statute says. These disclosures cannot be garbled or hidden in the crevices of the documentary material which has been filed by the assessee with the Assessing Officer. The assessee must act with candour and the disclosure must be full and true. A full disclosure is a disclosure o…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Scinida P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

…iture. 5. It was submitted before the Learned CIT(A) that the reassessment proceedings were initiated only due to change of opinion on the issue 3 which was examined and concluded earlier. Reliance was placed on following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji 79 ITR 582 (SC) (ii) Sirpur Paper Mills vs. ITO 114 ITR 404 (AP) (iii) CIT vs. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chand.) Once, all the primary facts disclosed by the assessee, it is for the AO to draw proper conclusions. If the conclusions drawn by the AO are erroneous, the AO can not reopen the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion as held in the case…