What is CIT v. Canara Bank authority for?

Reopening of assessment is invalid if based merely on a change of opinion without any new tangible material, especially after a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3).

How many judgments cite CIT v. Canara Bank?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Canara Bank (63 ITR 328), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Canara Bank come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 68, Section 10(38).

CIT v. Canara Bank (63 ITR 328)

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 890/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vimal Alloys Private Limited बनाम The DCIT PO: Mandi Gobindgarh, Vill: Sounti Circle, Patiala Amloh Road, Tehsil: Amloh, Mandi Gobindgarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, Advoca…

Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Mansa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 695/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 282Section 40A(3)Section 68

…of any tangible material being gathered by the AO post assessment u/s 143(3) , and as such the same is bad in law and deserves to be deleted and in support of his argument he relied on the following decisions: i. CIT and another vs. Canara bank as reported in 460 ITR 6 (SC). ii. Chief Administrator Jalandhar Development Authority vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jalandhar in ITA No. 377 to 379/Asr/2023 & 3/Asr/2024 iii. Basic Clothing P Ltd. vs. ITO 155 taxmann.com 507 DEL HC order dated 19.09.2023 iv. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others reported in [2023] 458 ITR 462 (Bom). v. Cliantha Research Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Ahmedabad repo…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…terials facts necessary for the said assessment. The Respondent relies on the following decision in support of the above submission. i.CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii.CIT Vs Canara Bank 456 ITR 316 (Karnataka) Departmental SLP dismissed in 460 ITR 6 (SC) (copy of the decision in ITA No.288 & 289 of 2018, dt.14.12.2022 and SLP orders are enclosed as Annex - I.) iii.Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) In ITA No.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023, dt.13.12.2024 (copy enclosed as Annex-II) The Department is in appeal against the above order of the CIT(A). The grounds of the Depart…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Faridkot, Bsnl Building vs. M/S Vohra Solvex Pvt. Ltd, Sadiq Road

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

…l and unless the same is proved, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law. On this issue, the ld. AR of the assessee has cited number of judicial precedents which are as follows: “i). Judgement in the case of CIT and another Vs Canara Bank, reported in 460 ITR 6 (SC). ii). Judgement in the cae of ACIT Vs Meder Gems 154 taxmann.com 647. dated 25.08.2023(SC). iii). Judgement in the case of Basic Clothing P. Ltd. Vs ITO 155 taxmann.com 507 Del HC order, dated 19.09.2023. iv). Judgement of Hon'ble Bench in the case of GMADA for A.Y. 2008-09 and AY 2009- 10 in ITA No. 410/Chd/2013 order, dated 20.12.2017 v).…

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Eurofins Peenya Resources Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, (formerly Eurofins Advinus Ltd.) Circle 2(1)(1), No.21 & 22, Phase II Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 058. PAN: AAFCA 2502B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronou…

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Eurofins Peenya Resources Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, (formerly Eurofins Advinus Ltd.) Circle 2(1)(1), No.21 & 22, Phase II Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 058. PAN: AAFCA 2502B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronou…

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

…of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point in question. 1. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Canara Bank [2023] 155 taxmann.com 290 (SC)/[2023] 295 Taxman 228 (SC)/[2024] 460 ITR 6(SC) 2. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(2) v. Jayesh T Kotak [2021] 130 taxmann.com 170 (SC)/[2021] 282 Taxman 298 3. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kuntala Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 608 (SC) 4. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court…

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7151/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 28Section 92BSection 92C

…erefore, any gain or loss arising there-from would be capital in nature. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (60 ITR 405); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (116 ITR 1); CIT V/s Canara Bank (63 ITR 328); decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s V.S.Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (206 ITR 291) & Cadell Weaving Mills Company Private Ltd. V/s CIT (116 Taxman 77) in support of the submissions. 4.3 In the light of all these decisions, the assessee submitted that capital receipt, except covered by Sec.45, are generally exempt from tax. It was also subm…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…capital goods. It was, therefore, held that surplus attributable to $ 36,123 was capital accretion and not profit taxable in the hands of the assessee. Further reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd. 63 ITR 328 (SC) wherein the assessee, a public limited company carrying on banking business in India, had opened a branch in Karachi. The Karachi branch of the assessee had with it a sum of Rs.3,97,221 belonging to its head office. The assessee did not carry on any business in foreign currency in Pakistan and the amount of Rs.3,97,221 lying with the Karachi…

Ajb Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 7386/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 45

…to be decided according to the Principles of Law, but not in accordance with the Accounting Practice”. 20 ITA.No.7386/Del./2018 M/s. AJB Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 6.2. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Mysore vs. Canara Bank Ltd., (1967) 63 ITR 328 (SC) held as under : “The respondent-bank had opened a branch in Karachi on November 15, 1946. After the partition of India in 1947, the currencies of the two Dominions of India and Pakistan continued to be at par until there was a devaluation of the Indian rupee on September 18, 1949. On that date the respondent had a sum of Rs.3,97,221 at the Ka…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…e’s business. The GDR issue was in the nature of foreign currency held on capital account, accordingly, the profit through exchange gain on inward remittance is capital in nature. The ld AR for the assessee relied upon the decision in CIT Versus Canara Bank (63 ITR 328)(SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd versus ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India CIT (166 ITR 108), Laurids Knudsen Maskinfabrik Ltd Vs ITO (77 ITD 212), SSI Ltd Vs DCIT (85 TTJ 1049), CIT Vs Telco Ltd (60 ITR 405) (SC), Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (222ITR 528) (Bom) and EID Parry Ltd (174 ITR 11) (Mad). 42. We have considered the r…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…e’s business. The GDR issue was in the nature of foreign currency held on capital account, accordingly, the profit through exchange gain on inward remittance is capital in nature. The ld AR for the assessee relied upon the decision in CIT Versus Canara Bank (63 ITR 328)(SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd versus ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India CIT (166 ITR 108), Laurids Knudsen Maskinfabrik Ltd Vs ITO (77 ITD 212), SSI Ltd Vs DCIT (85 TTJ 1049), CIT Vs Telco Ltd (60 ITR 405) (SC), Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (222ITR 528) (Bom) and EID Parry Ltd (174 ITR 11) (Mad). 42. We have considered the r…

M/S.Webtek Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2261/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju, JCIT (DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

…Ground No. 1, Learned AR of the assessee submitted that this is a general ground and no adjudication is called for. Regarding Ground No. 2, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Canara Bank Ltd. as reported in 63 ITR 328. Regarding ground no. 3, he submitted that since the assessee company is under liquidation, it is not required to prepare P & L Account as per Schedule – VI of The Companies Act and therefore, section 115 JB is not applicable Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We examine the facts…