CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd.

216 ITR 489High Court1995#15379 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 154 Section 69A Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 154 section 15 section 148 section 147 section 14 section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd.

AMARAVATI AGRO LTD.,,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 2275/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2275/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amaravati Agro Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 2 Le Bois, Abhishekapakkam, Income Tax, Pondicherry 605 007. Circle 1, Pondicherry. [Pan:Aaaca4655Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised A Legal Issue Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 54E

…and the same having not been dropped, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 24.01.2020 on the very same issue for the same AY is not proper in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 489]. Further, by referring to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 351(Mad), the ld. AR vehemently argued that once notice under section 154 of the Act has been issued to rectify the error in the assessment order, for the very same reason, the Assessing Officer has no jur…

SARITA GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…ings without conclusion of the proceedings initiated u/s 154. The initiation of two parallel proceedings on same subject matter, therefore, is illegal & bad in law. For this purpose reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad.) (HC) Reassessment under s. 147(b)—Vis-a-vis rectification under s. 154— The two jurisdictions are different as the existence of the information for the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is the sine qua non for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b) and discovery of an error apparent on the record is the sine qua…

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

…n the date when he recorded the satisfaction. It is a settled law that on the same issue two parallel proceedings cannot be taken unless one proceeding is dropped. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad.) (HC) Reassessment under s. 147(b)—Vis-a-vis rectification under s. 154—The two jurisdictions are different as the existence of the information for the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is the sine qua non for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b) and discovery of an error apparent on the record is the sine qua…

SHRI PUNEET TALERA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…pending u/s 154 before the AO, on the same issue notice u/s 263 issued on 13.03.2021 is bad in law as on the same issue there cannot be two parallel proceedings. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases:- i. CIT Vs. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad.) (HC) ii. Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. (2010) 322 ITR 369 (Cal.) (HC) iii. Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr. (2011) 79 CCH 453 (Mad.) (HC) iv. Anil Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer (2005) 96 TTJ 798 (Del.) (Trib.) v. Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT 2016 ITL 3825 (Del.) (Trib.) 3. It may be noted that notice u/s 263 (PB 24-…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. UVW APPARELS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80H

…een disputed by the ld. Departmental Representative. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while holding in favour of the assessee had relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. :- 4 -: E.I.D Parry Limited, (1995) 216 ITR 489. What was held by their lordships in this judgment is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’The crucial expressions for the exercise of two jurisdictions, one for the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) and the other for rectifying any mistake apparent from the records under section 154 of the Act, are, for the former, the ITO has in consequenc…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MERIT TECHNOLOGY INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2001/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2001/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Merit Technology India Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.14, Navarathna Garden Road, Corporate Circle – 4(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9806 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 4

….2014 for reopening of assessment for second time. The CIT(Appeals) found that the reopening of assessment for second time is nothing but on change of opinion. He also placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. E.I.D Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 and found that the Assessing Officer chose to initiate proceedings for rectification initially. However, he also initiated proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. Two proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer – one under Section 154 of the Act and another under Section 147 of the Act, are overlapping each other. Therefore, the proceedings…