CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566Supreme Court of India2003#335 most cited

What is CIT v. Foramer France authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

253

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Foramer France · 264 ITR 566 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment beyond four years · failure to disclose material facts · full and true disclosure · time-barred notice · invalid reopening · mere change of opinion · tangible material · live link

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 72

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)fresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147beyond four yearskelvinatormere change of opinionfull and true disclosurelive linkchange of opiniontangible materialshort term capital gains

Judgments citing CIT v. Foramer France

G S BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6581/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ut jurisdiction" Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: - CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (Full Bench); - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC); - CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310(Del); - CIT vs. ForanerFranch 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956(SC) - Associated Stone Industry Limited 224ITR 560 (SC) - CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd378 ITR 351 (Del.) Further, it is apparent from reason recorded that the Ld AO has merely reproduced the report of investigation wing without discussing the contents and material which lead to form basi…

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…what inferences of fact can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO: [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) - CIT v. Foramer France: [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) - CIT vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) - BLB Limited vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 495 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Vatika Ltd. vs. ITO: [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 13. In…

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

ITA 86/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…c. 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year is not valid. There had not been any failure of the part of the appellant company. a. German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bombay) (IIC). b. CIT v Former France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). c. Tata Business Support Services Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2015) (Bombay) (HC). d. Nirmal Band Securities (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bombay) (HC). e. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Тахтап 367 (Gujarat) (HC) (SLP of revenue is dismissed, Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Тахтап 366 (SC) B) FOR THIRD G…

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…147 of the Act and is void ab initio. Moreover, the reopening is also based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. The Ld. AR reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents: I.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 i. CIT Vs Foramer France (SC) 264 ITR 566 – Hon’ble Apex Court affirming the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 119 taxman 61 observed that:- Whether since admittedly there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expir…

DCIT, VIKASH BHAWAN DELHI vs. RAJAN KUMAR, LAXMI NAGAR,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 130/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhridcit Vs Rajan Kumar Room No. 218-D Block, 31,Vijay Block Laxmi Vikash Bhawan, Nagar Delhi-110092 Delhi- 110 002 Pan: Caapk8381E

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ollowing decisions; (i) PCIT v. L&T Ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.47 (ii) Sabh Instrastructure Ltd. v. asst. Commissioner of Income Tax [2018] 99 taxmann. Com 409 (Delhi) (iii) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR (Bom) H.C. (iv) CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) (v) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing v. CIT[2008] 175 taxman 262 (vi) Coperion Ideal (P.)Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 80 taxmann. Com (vii) CIT v. Suren International (P.) Ltd. [2013] taxmann. Com 398 The first proviso to Section 147 reads as under ; “ Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made fo…

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

…s :: 9 :: truly all material facts. Further, all the material facts are available at the time of making original assessment. The Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment reported in CIT v. Foramer France, [2003] 264 ITR 566, as well as this court judgment reported in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd., [2006] 286 ITR 674 and came to the correct conclusion." (Emphasis Supplied) (d) CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 718/[2008] 296 ITR 603 (Mad.) "6. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and held as follows: "But whether recourse to…

M/S. JAGMAG MERCANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…received funds of ₹53.95 lacs from two parties as stated hereinabove, which was duly disclosed by the assessee in the books of account. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC)/[2003], wherein it has held that when there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied to facts of instant…

M/S. JAGMAG MERCANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…received funds of ₹53.95 lacs from two parties as stated hereinabove, which was duly disclosed by the assessee in the books of account. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC)/[2003], wherein it has held that when there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied to facts of instant…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…the Courts have held that reopening of proceedings after the expiry of four years shall be invalid in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. - CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACTT: 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT v. Fenner India Ltd.: 241 ITR 672 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: - Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del) 308 IIR 38 (Del.) - Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 343 ITR 141 (Del) 23 - Avtee Ladi v, DCIT: 370 ITR 611 (Del) - CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…the Courts have held that reopening of proceedings after the expiry of four years shall be invalid in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. - CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACTT: 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT v. Fenner India Ltd.: 241 ITR 672 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: - Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del) 308 IIR 38 (Del.) - Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 343 ITR 141 (Del) 23 - Avtee Ladi v, DCIT: 370 ITR 611 (Del) - CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…the Courts have held that reopening of proceedings after the expiry of four years shall be invalid in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. - CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACTT: 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT v. Fenner India Ltd.: 241 ITR 672 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: - Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del) 308 IIR 38 (Del.) - Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 343 ITR 141 (Del) 23 - Avtee Ladi v, DCIT: 370 ITR 611 (Del) - CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…the Courts have held that reopening of proceedings after the expiry of four years shall be invalid in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. - CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACTT: 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT v. Fenner India Ltd.: 241 ITR 672 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: - Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del) 308 IIR 38 (Del.) - Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 343 ITR 141 (Del) 23 - Avtee Ladi v, DCIT: 370 ITR 611 (Del) - CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…the Courts have held that reopening of proceedings after the expiry of four years shall be invalid in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. - CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACTT: 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT v. Fenner India Ltd.: 241 ITR 672 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: - Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del) 308 IIR 38 (Del.) - Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 343 ITR 141 (Del) 23 - Avtee Ladi v, DCIT: 370 ITR 611 (Del) - CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465…

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…y failure on the part of the appellant in making a true and full disclosure of all the particulars related to the computation of his income.\n\nThe assessee has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) and IPCA Laboratories Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 426 (Bom) to emphasize that an assessment could not be re-opened where there was no failure on the part of the appellant in making full and true disclosure of the material facts, and it was merely based on a \"change of opinion.\"\n\nIn my considered view, the present case was re-opened merely on…

HIRALAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…eopening do not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary assessment. Hiralal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France (SC) 264 ITR 566 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “Hon'ble Apex Court affirming the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 119 taxman 61 observed that:- Whether since admittedly there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars i…

MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…easons recorded do not allege failure on the part of the assessee, which is a sine qua non for reopening beyond four years. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561 (SC)], Foramer France v. CIT [264 ITR 566 (SC)] and jurisdictional High Court decisions reported in 430 ITR 515 (Mad), 455 ITR 292 (Mad) and 476 ITR 193 Mad) holding that reassessment beyond four years is bad in law when there is no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is undisputed that the…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…available at the time of making\noriginal assessment—Therefore, Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of\nassessment is bad in law-No substantial question of law arises for consideration—CIT vs.\nForamer France (2003) 185 CTR (SC) 512 : (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) and CIT vs. Elgi Finance\nLtd. (2006) 205 CTR (Mad) 241 : (2006) 286 ITR 674 (Mad) followed.\n(xii) The power to reopen an assessment is conditional on the formation of a reason to believe\nthat income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The power is not akin to a review. The\nexistence of tangible material is necessary to ensure again…

M/S. AMAN ENTERPRISES,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…the AO has violated the provisions of section 147 and thus the proceedings initiated is itself ab-initio void. 4. That reliance on this issue is placed upon the following decisions Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Foramer France [2003] 129 Taxman 72 (SC)/[2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC)/[2003] 185 CTR 512 (SC)[16-01-2003] Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax-1(1)(2) [2020] 117 taxmann.com 442 Bombay)/[2020] 272 Taxman 255 (Bombay)/[2020] 426 ITR 228 (Bombay) [11-03-2020] Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. 306 ITR 136 wherein it was held…

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

…Appellant to disclose material facts as per First Proviso to section 147, the order passed by AO is required to be quashed in light of the following judicial precedents • Foramer v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436 (All.) (affirmed by SC in CIT v. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC); • Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT [2000] 241 ITR 672 (Madras HC) 3.2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has not merely submitted the books of accounts before the AO, whereas a complete scrutiny has been done, wherein the issues / addition made in the reassessment order were already dealt in or examined, hence the Explanat…

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)

…fully and truly all material facts. Further, all the material facts are available at the time of making original assessment. The Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment reported in CIT v. Foramer France, [2003] 264 ITR 566, as well as this court judgment reported in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd., [2006] 286 ITR 674 and came to the correct conclusion." (d) CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 718/[2008] 296 ITR 603 (Mad.) "6. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and held as follows: "But whether recourse to section 147 could be m…

Showing 1–20 of 253 · Page 1 of 13

...
CIT v. Foramer France (264 ITR 566) — Cited in 253 Judgments | BharatTax