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

Alpesh K. Ajmera, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Alpesh K. Ajmera Vs. Ito Ward – 6(1)(2) 29, Aryan Mahal Mumbai C Road, Churchgate Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabpa7897C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…completion of assessment. I found that nothing was pointed out by the Assessing Officer so as to indicate that the assessee failed to furnish any detail required for the assessment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416 observed as under: - “The reasons also did not spell out failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In the circumstances, the deeming provision in Explanation 2 to section 147 had no application to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the impugned notice was set aside.” Similar view has been taken by the…

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

…lk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, c. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), M/s Crescent Construction Co. k. B.B.C.…

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

…lk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, c. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), M/s Crescent Construction Co. k. B.B.C.…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…n Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom.) iv) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom.) v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings V. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom.) vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) vii) IPCA Laboratories Ltd v DCIT (251 ITR 416) (Bom.) viii) Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161)(Bom) ix) ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203)(Bom.) x) CIT v Daimler Chrysler India (P.) Ltd. (33 taxmann. com 419)(Bom) xi) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCII (346 ITR 355)(Bom.) 7 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) ITA No.2961 & 2962/Mum/2014, A.Ys.2003-04 & 2005-06 xii)…

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3873/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3816/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3815/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3814/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3796/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3791/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…first proviso to Sec. 147 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. This proposition is duly supported by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 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 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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 In view of the above provisi…

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

ITA 6647/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80

…h the view already taken on such material on record and hence, re-opening of assessment cannot be sustained. It was held that in such a case, the reopening is based on mere "change of opinion" and hence, the same is invalid. 6.10 In the case of IPCA Labs Ltd 251 ITR 416 (Bom), where the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC on export of trading goods was examined in original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) for AY 1992-93, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that subsequent re-opening on 30.03.1999 where A.O sought to reconsider the said claim u/s. 80HHC on export of trading goods was invalid as it was ba…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…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 30 ITA No.7428/Mum/2013 & C.O. 99/Mum/2016 M/s Intelnet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (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…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…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 (…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Cir - 5, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Akash MansingkaFor Respondent: Shri Angan Shaiza, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…Coal India Limited., AY 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A No. 357/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Coal India Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (PAN:AABCC3929J) Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A. No.1320/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Coal India Limited Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 20.09.2016 Date of pronouncement: 28.09.2016 For the Assessee: Shri Akash Mansingka, For the Respondent: Shri Angan Shaiza, C…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…id section, the reopening is bad. It was also contended that the material facts, were duly disclosed by the assessee, which were necessary for assessment. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 416 (Bom.) by explaining that, without prejudice that the amount of rupees one crore was received by the assessee under the agreement dated 23/05/2004 for transferring his residual or revisionary interest left after the agreement of lease dated 03/08/1998. The ld. counsel further explained that the issue was 3 Jayant Manilal Gandhy examined by t…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India (2010)320 ITR 561(SC) 2. Purity Techtextile Private Limited, 2010-TIOL-211-HC-Mum. 3. Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 318 ITR 295 (Del) 3. CArtini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009)314 ITR 275 (Bom) 4. IPCA Labs Ltd., (2002) 251 ITR 416 (Bom) 5. Asteroids Trading and Investments Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom), 6. Siemens Information Systems Ltd., (2008)295 ITR 333 (Bom) and 7. Asian Paints Ltd., (2009)308 ITR 195 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2013 12 8. Delhi High Court full Bench in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2002) 256 ITR 1 (del) 9. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., (1978)114 ITR 40…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…pinion will not warrant a reopening u/s 147 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings. The assessee company relied upon following case laws to support its contentions: i) CIT v. Foramer France , 264 ITR 566(SC) ii) IPCA Laboratories Limited v. DCIT, 251 ITR 416(Bom.) iii) Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO ,106 ITR 1(SC) iv) Addl. CIT v. Shankerdas B. Pahljani in ITA no. 5085/Mum/ 2001(Mum Trib.) v) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1(Del.)(FB) vi) Wyeth India Private Limited v. IAC 137 ITR 20(Bom.) vii) Garden Silk Mills Private Limited v. DCIT 237 ITR 668(Guj.) viii) Jindal Photo Mills L…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

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)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…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 (…