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 368,155 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

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…rs from the end of the assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment. i. ACITv.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.) Ltd.[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) ii. CITv.Foramer Finance (264 ITR 566) (SC) iii. Prashant Joshi vs. ITO (189 taxman 1) iv. RPG Transmission (359 ITR 673) (Mad HC) v.Kotarki Constructions(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT(89 taxmann.com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxman…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…rs from the end of the assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment. i. ACITv.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.) Ltd.[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) ii. CITv.Foramer Finance (264 ITR 566) (SC) iii. Prashant Joshi vs. ITO (189 taxman 1) iv. RPG Transmission (359 ITR 673) (Mad HC) v.Kotarki Constructions(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT(89 taxmann.com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxman…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S, Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P)Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 870/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. &
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssued after 4 years where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment. The existence of tangible material is essential to safeguard against an arbitrary exercise of this power. [Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) H.K. Buildcon Ltd. v. ITO 339 ITR 535 (Guj) Aentis Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT 323 IT 570 (Bom) Respectfully following the above decisions, I am of the considered view that inasmuch as there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment, the in…

M/S. Revera Milk & Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1974/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1974/मुं/ 2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Revera Milk & Foods Pvt. Ltd., 610, Tulsiyani Chambers, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aadcm-0732-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147

…reopening that assessee has failed to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that assessment year. In support of this contention the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on CIT vs. Foramer France, 264 ITR 566(SC) / 129 Taxman 72 (SC). 4 (iii) The third contention raised by the assessee is that DDIT(Investigation) issued notice u/s. 131 of the Act on 09/04/2018. The assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 12/03/2015. Thus, on the date of issuance of notice u/s. 131 of the Act no assessment proceedings were pending. In the absence of any pending proceed…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rathna Cafe, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 14/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, M/S. Ratna Café, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. No.255, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Pan: Aaafr 0842B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…sessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2022 at Chennai. (महावीर "सह ) (जी. मंजुनाथ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA) उपा"य" /VICE PR…

Saravana Stores, Chennai vs. ACIT, C.C-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 488/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to reopen the case of the assessee. This being the case, the reassessment proceedings could 6 not be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are to be quashed. We order so. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (264 ITR 566) would apply. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue and confirmed the order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad which held that since there was no failure on the part of assessee to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the case could not be reopened and the notice issued u/s…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

…in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Page 4 of 23 I.T.A. No.: 275/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Arihant International Limited. (P.) Ltd. reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France reported in [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) which was subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6.1. Secondly, it was contended t…

M/S Macmillan Publishers India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2784/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Macmillan Publishers India The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 4(1), No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aafcm 5564R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai In Ita No.69/18- 19 Dated 16.07.2019. The Re-Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 4(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2018. I.T.A. No.2784/Chny/2019 2 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S 148 Of The Act Even Though There Is No Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly The Material Fact Necessary For Its Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Year & The Original Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Regarding Reopening Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative, Hence Need Not To Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he relevant assessment year and original assessment is completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, no re-opening is possible. This view of ours is supported by the I.T.A. No.2784/Chny/2019 7 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566, wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France vs. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 436 and held that 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 15. It may be mentioned that a new Section substituted Section 147 of the Inco…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…s from the end of the assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment. i. ACITv.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.) Ltd.[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) ii. CITv.Foramer Finance (264 ITR 566) (SC) iii. Prashant Joshi vs. ITO (189 taxman 1) iv. RPG Transmission (359 ITR 673) (Mad HC) v.Kotarki Constructions(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT(89 taxmann.com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxman…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2972/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment, the reopening cannot be validly done. This issue has been dealt by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566, wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France vs. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 436 by observing as under:- 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 15. It may be mentioned that a new Section substituted Section 147 o…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [PAN: AAECP1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department by :…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 427/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [PAN: AAECP1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department by :…

ACIT, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore vs. M/S. the Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 703/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 703/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT M/s. The Cuddalore Cuddalore Circle, District Central Co- बनाम/ Cuddalore. operative Bank Ltd., Vs. No. 1, Beach Road, Cuddalore. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAAT-0209-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT ""थ" की…

P & C Construction P. Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3243/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Respondent: Ms.M.S.Deeptha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194Section 40a

…efore initiation, the reopening itself is void-ab-initio as struck by the concept of limitation (Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Eco Media(P)Ltd. And Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow in case of Rupani Products and citations in 284 ITR 542 (Bom),287 ITR 494 (Bom), 264 ITR 566 SC). iii) Since re-opening of assessment started subsequent to completion of assessment made u/s143(3) of the IT. Act, notice u/s.143(2) ought to have been issued which the a.o. fatally failed. The a.o. invoked both section 143(3) and section 147 of the LT. Act, which is also null and void. 5. That the Ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not…

P & C Construction P. Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3242/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Respondent: Ms.M.S.Deeptha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194Section 40a

…efore initiation, the reopening itself is void-ab-initio as struck by the concept of limitation (Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Eco Media(P)Ltd. And Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow in case of Rupani Products and citations in 284 ITR 542 (Bom),287 ITR 494 (Bom), 264 ITR 566 SC). iii) Since re-opening of assessment started subsequent to completion of assessment made u/s143(3) of the IT. Act, notice u/s.143(2) ought to have been issued which the a.o. fatally failed. The a.o. invoked both section 143(3) and section 147 of the LT. Act, which is also null and void. 5. That the Ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not…

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)

…IP expenditure debited to the Profit & Loss Account which, the then AO considered and passed the original assessment order u/s 143(3). b) We invite Your Good self’s attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France (264 ITR 566) (SC), wherein it has been held that: 10 > notice for reassessment would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the assessment year, if the original assessment were made under section 143(3) of the Act; > Assessment could not be reopened on a mere change of opinion. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Provis…

Late Smt. Geetha Vasan Rep by Legal Heir Shri M.G.Vasan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2666/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2666/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008 - 2009 (Late) Smt. Geetha Vasan, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Legal Heir Shri M.G. Vasan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -16(3), Shri M. G. Vasan, Chennai – 600 034. Old No.157, New No.48, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN : AEGPG 0456C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ…

Comm Vault Systems (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Gautam, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…which could ever remotely allege that the assessee had not itself disclosed the relevant provisions “fully” and “truly” in the first round in light of section 147 1st first proviso. We thus rely on the assessee’s case law CIT & Anr. Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (S.C), Supreme Treves (P) Ltd v. Dy.CIT & Ors (2009)323 ITR 323 (Bom HC), CIT v. Arvind Remedies Ltd (2015) 93 CCH 121 (Mad H.C), CIT v. Page 3 of 4 ITA No 380 of 2019 COm Vault Systems India P Ltd Schwing Stetter India P Ltd (2015)93 CCH 112 (Mad H.C), Gemeni Leather Stores (1975) 100 ITR 1 (S.C), Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1961) 41 ITR 191 (S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Rane Brake Lining Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2834/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year. In I.T.A. No.2834/Chny/2019 9 such situation, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France vs. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 436 and held as under:- 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 15. It may be mentioned that a new Section substituted Section 1…

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…gains claimed by the assessee u/s.50B of the Act and allowance of deduction of unutilized amount of provision for warranty was rightly allowed. The ld.AR for the assessee relied on few of the case laws:- 1) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foramer France, 264 ITR 566 (2003) 2) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France, 247 ITR 436 (2001) 3) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (2010) 4) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (2002) 5) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd., 286 ITR 674 (2006) 8.…