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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Foramer France?

253 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Foramer France (264 ITR 566), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Foramer France come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 139, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Foramer France (264 ITR 566)

DCIT, Madurai vs. Ramco Systems Limited, Rajapalayam

In the result, both appeal filed by the Revenue as well as CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.25/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 & C.O. No. 31/Mds/2016 [In I.T.A. No. 25/Mds/216] The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ramco Systems, Income Tax, Vs. 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(1), Rajapalayam. Madurai. [Pan:Aabcr2076B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Arun C. Bharat, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai Dated 06.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. In The Appeal, The Grievances Of The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Cancelling The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] On The Ground Of Write Off Of Trade

For Appellant: Shri Arun C. Bharat, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Jagadisan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.25/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 & C.O. No. 31/Mds/2016 [In I.T.A. No. 25/Mds/216] The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Ramco Systems, Income Tax, Vs. 47, PSK Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(1), Rajapalayam. Madurai. [PAN:AABCR2076B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Arun C. Bhara…

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

…Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), b. Garden Silk 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) 35…

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

…Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), b. Garden Silk 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) 35…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Mani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3759/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mani Exports 16(3), Mumbai, Matru Mandir, 1903 Panchratna Opera House, Vs. 2Nd Floor, R. No. 206 Tardeoi Mumbai-400 004 Rd, Mumbai-07 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaefm2320F Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr Assessee By .. Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 880H

…the reason that the assessee’s case falls under proviso to section 147 of the Act. 6. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) has taken the view that the first proviso to section 147 of the Act lays down an exception whereby the AO is not permitted to exercise his jurisdiction in reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Once the exception carved out by proviso to s. 147 of the Act comes into play, the case…

M/S. Novartis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…close fully and truly all material facts for framing of assessment for the relevant AY. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) has taken the view that the first proviso to section 147 of the Act lays down an exception whereby the AO is not permitted to exercise his jurisdiction in reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Once the exception carved out by proviso to s. 147 of the Act comes into play, the case…

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1282/MUM/2006[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…close fully and truly all material facts for framing of assessment for the relevant AY. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) has taken the view that the first proviso to section 147 of the Act lays down an exception whereby the AO is not permitted to exercise his jurisdiction in reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Once the exception carved out by proviso to s. 147 of the Act comes into play, the case…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2754/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 33ASection 72

…, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Reliance was placed by the Assessee on the ratio laid down in the following decisions: (i) Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (291 ITR 500)(SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Foramers France (264 ITR 566) (SC) (iii) Kelvinators of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Del) affirmed in (320 ITR 561) ITA No.2754/Kol/2013 – M/s. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. A.Y.1999-2000 9 (iv) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) (Del) The CIT(A) held that the re-assessment proceedings had been initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment yea…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S M.N. Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 300/BANG/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xi)Section 8O

…licable. The time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 got barred by limitation on 31.3.2005, where as the notice was issued on 8.9.2006. It is therefore held that the notice u/s 148 is barred by limitation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kelvinator India Ltd. 264 ITR 566 held that the fact which could have been discovered by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, may not constitute a new information. There cannot be a fresh application of mind on the same set of facts, and such action would be mere change of opinion which cannot confer jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 147 after 1.4.1989…

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

…dal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden 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…

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

…dal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden 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.),…