CIT v. Foramer Finance

251 ITR 416High Court2001#2858 most cited

What is CIT v. Foramer Finance authority for?

Reopening assessments is permissible after four years if there was an escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, even if the initial assessment involved a change of opinion.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Foramer Finance · section 147 · section 148 · reassessment · beyond four years · escapement of income · material facts · failure to disclose · change of opinion · first proviso to section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10BSection 139Section 142Section 150(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

beyond four yearswithin four yearsmaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormere change of opinionchange of opinionescapement of incomereason to believereopening of assessmentnon-application of mindtangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Foramer Finance

Southern Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 22, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…R 566 (Bom.) "8. The Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year and in view of the judgment of this court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Gajanand Meena, Deputy CIT (No. 2)[2001] 251 ITR 416, the Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond four years, unless he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. He submitted that a bare reading of the reasons shows that re…

Tharmaraj Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

…TR 566 (Bom.) "8. The Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year and in view of the judgment of this court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Gajanand Meena, Deputy CIT (No. 2)[2001] 251 ITR 416, the Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond four years, unless he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. He submitted that a bare reading of the reasons shows that re…

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

…t in case of Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom): (2003) 183 CTR (Bom) 248 wherein it is held under Para-5 as under: "In the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Bom) 582: (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom), this Court has taken the view that in view of the proviso to s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, no action can be taken for reopening of an assessment after four years unless the Ld. AO has reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts nece…

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

…e on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Page No. | 6 M/s. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd c) That the C.I.T.(A) has erred in not following the following decisions:- 1) IPCA Laboratories Vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416,419 (Bom) 2) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 266 ITR 566,572 (Bom) 3) Grindwell Norton Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 673, 676 (Bom) 4) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332, 334 (Bom) 5) Supreme Treves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bom) 6) Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. K…

Godavari Biorefineries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. A C I T - 2(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Somaiya Bhavan Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 45/47 M.G. Road, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aabcg2543C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…ee to disclose all material facts truly and fully spelt out in the reasons recorded, it is fatal and same deserved to the set aside. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416, Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 339 and German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494. He also referred to several other judicial precedents on that issue. 8 M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. 12. On merits it was submitted that as per letter dated 09.06.2006 the renewal of recognition to the in-house R&D Unit of the assessee at Ahmednagar is a…

M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 336/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh Sandip Bhandare, C.AFor Respondent: Sh Mayur Kamble, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Hindustan Lever Ltd V. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 (Bom.), Grindwell Norton Ltd. V. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT 267 ITR 673 (Bom.) and IPCA Laboratories Ltd. V. Gajanand 19 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. Meena, Dy. CIT 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) (supra) and Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs., ACIT-15(2)(1), Mumbai vide ITA.No.610/Mum/2018 order dated 27.05.2020 and submitted that if the A.O. wish to invoke second limb of First Proviso to Section 147, then, he is duty bound to bring in the satisfaction note that income charge…

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)

…ed on a mere change of opinion, if there is no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment. e) Similar view has been consistently taken in the following decisions: > IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (2001) (251 ITR 416) (Bom); > Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (266 ITR 196) (Bom); 11 > Caprihans India Ltd. vs. DCIT (266 ITR 566) (Bom); > Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). f) Further, attention is invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being jurisdictional High Court in our case, in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Alfa Laval India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2173/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 The Dy.Cit, .......अपीलाथ" /Appellant Circle-8, Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S.Alfa Laval India Ltd., S.No.2221 A, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Near Kasarwadi, Pune – 411 012. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan: Aaaca 5899 A Revenue By : Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 01.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Holding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 As Bad In Law? 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating That The Mistake In The Original Assessment Due To Erroneous Construction Or Due To Non-Consideration Of The Conditions Required To Be Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak - ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Walimbe - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…opening would amount to change of opinion and relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). The appellant also relied on the following deicison: a. IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs. Gajanand Meena DCIT [2001] 251 ITR 416 (Bom). b. Bhor Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT & ORS [2004] 267 ITR 335 (Bom). c. Desai Brothers Ltd Vs. ANR [2005] 272 ITR 335 (Bom). d. Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) e. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd Vs. ACIT & ORS [2006] 282 ITR 516 (Bom) f. Industan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs.DCIT& ANR [2010] 328 ITR 534…

Famy Care Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7963/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Famy Care Pvt. Ltd., Acit-2(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Bardy House, Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, 12/14, V.N. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacf 0632 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, Ar Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…8 or to disclose ally and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment. In this view of the matter, we are supported by the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories. vs. Gajanand Meena & others (251 ITR 416) wherein it is held that 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act clearly states that no action can be taken for reopening the assessment after four years unless the AO has reason to belief that income has escaped assessment by the reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment.…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…arden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (…

Dy. CIT- Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. Jamnalal Sons Pvt. Ltd., Wardha

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 34/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…l facts and hence, the re- opening was held as bad in law. 13. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has referred binding decisions of the Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court and Tribunal in the following cases: A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) IPCA Vs. Gajanand Meena (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) ii) Bhavesh Developers Vs. Assessing Officer (2010) 329 ITR 0249 ( Bom.) iii) Sir Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sang Vs. ACIT (2005) 199 CTR 24 (Bom.) iv) Bank International Indonesia Vs. DDIT (International Taxation) ITA No.1083/Mum/2006. 14. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High C…

ACIT Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. Jamnalal Sons Pvt Lid., Wardha

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 284/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…l facts and hence, the re- opening was held as bad in law. 13. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has referred binding decisions of the Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court and Tribunal in the following cases: A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) IPCA Vs. Gajanand Meena (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) ii) Bhavesh Developers Vs. Assessing Officer (2010) 329 ITR 0249 ( Bom.) iii) Sir Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sang Vs. ACIT (2005) 199 CTR 24 (Bom.) iv) Bank International Indonesia Vs. DDIT (International Taxation) ITA No.1083/Mum/2006. 14. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High C…

ACIT Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. Jamnalal Sons Pvt Lid., Wardha

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 283/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…l facts and hence, the re- opening was held as bad in law. 13. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has referred binding decisions of the Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court and Tribunal in the following cases: A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) IPCA Vs. Gajanand Meena (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) ii) Bhavesh Developers Vs. Assessing Officer (2010) 329 ITR 0249 ( Bom.) iii) Sir Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sang Vs. ACIT (2005) 199 CTR 24 (Bom.) iv) Bank International Indonesia Vs. DDIT (International Taxation) ITA No.1083/Mum/2006. 14. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High C…

ACIT Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. Jamnalal Sons Pvt Lid., Wardha

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 260/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…l facts and hence, the re- opening was held as bad in law. 13. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has referred binding decisions of the Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court and Tribunal in the following cases: A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) IPCA Vs. Gajanand Meena (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) ii) Bhavesh Developers Vs. Assessing Officer (2010) 329 ITR 0249 ( Bom.) iii) Sir Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sang Vs. ACIT (2005) 199 CTR 24 (Bom.) iv) Bank International Indonesia Vs. DDIT (International Taxation) ITA No.1083/Mum/2006. 14. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High C…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thane vs. Ostwal Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarito, Ward-2(5), M/S Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 16, 6Th Floor, 201/1A, Ostwal Park, 2Nd Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander Estate, Road No. 16Z, (W), 401105. Thane (W), 400604. Pan: Aaaco4853A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashish Pophare (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Pophare (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah (AR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts in the return of income so filed, accordingly, in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of 1. IPCA Laboratories Ltd., vs. Gajanand Meena, DCIT & Others (No.2) reported in 251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., vs. K.J. Rao and another reported in 268 ITR 203, 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514, no reopening after expiry of four 5 ITA No. 4397 Mum 2017-M/s Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd. years…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जे’’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘J’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment 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 राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri V. K. Chaturvedi Sr.DR Shri Mehul…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

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

…533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), 23 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), x. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), xi. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…ills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), x. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), xi. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), x. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), xi. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), x. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), xi. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst…

CIT v. Foramer Finance (251 ITR 416) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax