CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

294 ITR 310High Court2007#567 most cited

What is CIT v. Eicher Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous for want of an inquiry, thus restricting revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer applied their mind to the issue and had all relevant facts before them. Additionally, disallowed expenditures are not to be included as part of an asset's cost for tax purposes.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eicher Ltd. · 294 ITR 310 · Delhi High Court · Section 263 · revisionary power · PCIT jurisdiction · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · AO application of mind · lack of inquiry · disallowed expenditure · asset cost · Section 40A(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 144CSection 263Section 144BSection 148Section 11Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundrelinquishment of rightsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211section 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feeslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2807/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…Del)(FB) • Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd vs ITO: 314 ITR 263 (Guj) - SLP dismissed by SC • Satnam Overseas Ltd & Anr vs ACIT: 329 ITR 237 (Del) • Jal Hotels Co Ltd vs ADIT: 184 Taxman 1 (Del) • CIT vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) •…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…Del)(FB) • Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd vs ITO: 314 ITR 263 (Guj) - SLP dismissed by SC • Satnam Overseas Ltd & Anr vs ACIT: 329 ITR 237 (Del) • Jal Hotels Co Ltd vs ADIT: 184 Taxman 1 (Del) • CIT vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) •…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…Del)(FB) • Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd vs ITO: 314 ITR 263 (Guj) - SLP dismissed by SC • Satnam Overseas Ltd & Anr vs ACIT: 329 ITR 237 (Del) • Jal Hotels Co Ltd vs ADIT: 184 Taxman 1 (Del) • CIT vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) •…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…in the impugned assessment order and the additions have been made by indulging in surmises conjecture and without bringing any adverse material on record. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he relied upon the following case laws:- - CIT VS. EICHER LTD. 294 ITR 310 (DELHI). - CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. VS. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) - CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) - CIT VS. FEATHER FOAM ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. (2008) 2967 ITR 342 (DEL.) - SHEONATH SINGH VS. ACIT (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) - DALMIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT & ANR. 64 DTR 417 - BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. VS. DCIT WRIT PETIT…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…1 (SC) (para 45) 11 Ms. Seema Dilip vora CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…ssessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before passing the orders under Section 143(3). Further, the proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. CIT (OSD), Range-10, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…ssessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before passing the orders under Section 143(3). Further, the proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…ssessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before passing the orders under Section 143(3). Further, the proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…ssessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before passing the orders under Section 143(3). Further, the proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Latha Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1393, 1394 & 1395/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…7 :- 12 -: opinion' . Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." Their lordships had affirmed the judgment of Delhi High 8. Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Eicher Ltd, 294 ITR 310. In the case of Eicher Ltd (supra), the reopening attempted was within four years from the end of the concerned assessment year. Thus, in our opinion once the original assessment were completed after considering all details filed by the assessee, unless there is tangible material which is outside of what was filed by the assessee which can jus…

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.5 & 6 of the appeal are dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran,Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(3)(1), M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Aayakar Bhavan, Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.),Now Mumbai-400020. Vs. Merged With Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Dcit 3(3)(1), Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.),Now Merged With Travel Mumbai-400020. Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni Vs. House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT –DR with & with Ms Pooja Swaroop ( Sr
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 8O

…them to restrain from business. The assessee has not acquired any asset by making such payment to both of them. In support his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Eicher Ltd. (302 ITR 249) (Delhi), CIT v/s Career Launcher India Ltd. (358 ITR 179 ) (Delhi ) and decision of ITA No.1924 & 2075/M/2007- Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal in Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. v/s ACIT [2015] 55 taxmann.com 336(Mumbai Trib). It was further argued that learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Tap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154

…o support his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 6539 of 2010 decided on 04-12-2012; ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Ltd., 302 ITR 249 (Del); iii. Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 26 taxmann.com 268 (Madras); iv. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd., 53 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai-Trib.); v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synergy Credit Corpn. Ltd., 9 SOT 75 (Mumbai). 5.4 The ld. AR submitted that in all the abov…

M/S Gkn Driveline India Ltd, N vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, De

The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA/542/2005HC Delhi27 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…ring and there was no serious threat to the market leadership position of the Assessee and hence the non- compete fee was a revenue expenditure incurred by the Assessee. Mr. Gupta specifically relied upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Eicher Ltd.[2008] 302 ITR 249 (Del) (hereinafter ‘Eicher Ltd.’) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that a non- compete fee is in the nature of business/revenue expenditure. It was further submitted that the SLP against this judgment was also dismissed. Submissions of the Revenue 10. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, heavily…

ADIT (E), Delhi vs. M/S Asian Centre for Organisation Research & Development., New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3718/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80G

…annot be initiated unless there is surfacing of fresh fact after completion of original assessment. Such view has come out in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) and, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v CIT 292 ITR 49(Del) and M/s. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del) and several other cases In fact, Apex Court has in the above case held as under: "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the A…

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

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

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

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

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

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

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

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

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1061/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…r the AY 2001-2002 had been issued within four years. The ITAT referred to the decision of the Full Bench („FB‟) of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del). It also noted the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310(Del) where it was held that if the entire material had been placed by the Assessee before the AO at the time when the original assessment was made and the AO had applied his mind to material and accepted the view of the Assessee, then the assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. 13. The ITAT examined the ass…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1058/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…r the AY 2001-2002 had been issued within four years. The ITAT referred to the decision of the Full Bench („FB‟) of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del). It also noted the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310(Del) where it was held that if the entire material had been placed by the Assessee before the AO at the time when the original assessment was made and the AO had applied his mind to material and accepted the view of the Assessee, then the assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. 13. The ITAT examined the ass…