CIT v. Foramer France

Jm Financial Institutional Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am M/S Jm Financial Institutional Securities Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. (As On Date Merged With Jm Financial Tax 4(3)(Dcit) Consultants P. Ltd. & Name Changed To Jm Mk Road Financial Institutional Securities Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Cnergy Mumbai 400 020 Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025. Pan: Aabca2496G Appellant .. Respondent

…, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief”. Further, the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) has clearly laid down the principle that where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the reassessment proceedings after the expiry of four years is not possible in view of the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case and after appreciating the statutory provisions and judicial…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (India ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Income Tax-10(3), Room Main Street, Hiranandani Garden, 4Th No.451, Floor, Aayakar Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacc 4309B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri K.Mohan Das (Dr) Respondent By .. Shri Hiro Rai Date Of Hearing .. 25-07-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25-07-2016

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Income Tax-10(3), Room Main Street, Hiranandani Garden, 4th No.451, Floor, Aayakar Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020. PAN: AAACC 4309B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. Shri K.Mohan Das (DR) Respondent by .. Shri Hiro Rai Date of hearing .. 25-07-2016 Date of pronouncement 25-07-2016 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL,AM: The instant appeal has been filed by the Reven…

Asst CIT Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6203/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit (Osd)-I, Prime Focus Ltd. Central Range-7, 2, Anand Kunj, North Avenue, बनाम/ Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 6811 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 44/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6203/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Prime Focus Ltd. Asst. Cit (Osd)-I, 2, Anand Kunj, North Avenue, Central Range-7, बनाम/ Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 6811 B (""या"ेपक/Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Premanand J. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rushabh H. Vyas

…s sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The law in the matter is well settled, even as reliance may be placed on the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), affirming the decision of Foramer vs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436, 443 (All). In the present case, apart from the fact that we observe no lapse on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the computation of its income, and neither has any been pointed to us, the claim has been subject to veri…

Empire Footwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhm/S. Empire Footwear, York House, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Colaba Causeway, Colaba, Income Tax, Cent. Circle-20, Mumbai 400 039 Mumbai Pan:Aaaef 5754 H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Ajay R. Singh, Ar Respondent By .. Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 14-07-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 14-06-2016

…he Act was issued beyond four years and the assessee’s case consequently does fall under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 567 (SC) affirming the decision of the 5 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer Vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436has held that even after amendment in Section 147 of the Act by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989, under the proviso where the original assessment has been made u/s 143(3) of the Act and notice issue…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ssee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." 5.1.5 In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v Foramer France reported at 264 ITR 566, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court wherein it had been held that reopening of assessment was not permissible after 4 years unless there had been failure on the part of the appellant to make full and true disclosure of material facts. In the said case, the appellant was a foreign company engaged in the business of oil…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ssee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." 5.1.5 In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v Foramer France reported at 264 ITR 566, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court wherein it had been held that reopening of assessment was not permissible after 4 years unless there had been failure on the part of the appellant to make full and true disclosure of material facts. In the said case, the appellant was a foreign company engaged in the business of oil…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ssee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." 5.1.5 In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v Foramer France reported at 264 ITR 566, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court wherein it had been held that reopening of assessment was not permissible after 4 years unless there had been failure on the part of the appellant to make full and true disclosure of material facts. In the said case, the appellant was a foreign company engaged in the business of oil…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ssee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." 5.1.5 In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v Foramer France reported at 264 ITR 566, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court wherein it had been held that reopening of assessment was not permissible after 4 years unless there had been failure on the part of the appellant to make full and true disclosure of material facts. In the said case, the appellant was a foreign company engaged in the business of oil…

ITO 6(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Avalon Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

…erm capital gain. Admittedly, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30-03-2010 i.e after the expiry of 4 years. We find that this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France reported in (2003) 264 ITR 566(SC). In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in (2001) 247 ITR 436 by stating that the reopening is not possible unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts ne…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai vs. Sun Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…clusion. It is a settled proposition of law that reason to believe can never be the outcome of a change of opinion. This view is supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] and CIT vs. Foramer France [264 ITR 567] are applicable to the facts of the case of assessee. Since, Assessing Officer has changed his own earlier decision, so, CIT(A) was justified in holding that Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s.157 of the Act. Same is upheld. 3. Next issue is with regard to business loss of Rs.7,30,31,599/- on sale of shares treated as cap…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The ACIT, circle-(OSD)-2(1) 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma C…

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)

…lms 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.), 40 Jayant Manilal Gandhy j. Agricultural Produce M…

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

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)

…amendment to section 147 of the Act, a mere change of opinion 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 Limit…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

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)

…Enterprises (P) Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 342 (Del.) - CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) - ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat AIi Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC) - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Others (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) - CIT v. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) - M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) - Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v.. ITO [2009] 318 ITR 295 (Del.) - CIT v. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 200 (Mad.) - Caetini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275 (Bom.) - Pan Drugs Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 316 ITR (AT) 72 (Ahm.) The assessee company submitted that the Hon…

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

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

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

…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.),…