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

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…26$ ITR 192 (Pages 88-91, relevant page 88 of judgment set) j) Apeejay Education Society V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 47 ITR (Trib) 33 ASR-TRIB (Pages 92-96, relevant page 92 & 93 of judgment set) k) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Former France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (Pages 114- 115, relevant page 115 of judgment set) l) Berger Paints India Ltd, V/s Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 245 ITR 645 CAL-HC (Pages 116-122, relevant page 116 of judgment set) m) Shri Abhay Singh Chautalavs ACIT in ITA No. 522/Chd/2015 dated 06,03.2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…26$ ITR 192 (Pages 88-91, relevant page 88 of judgment set) j) Apeejay Education Society V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 47 ITR (Trib) 33 ASR-TRIB (Pages 92-96, relevant page 92 & 93 of judgment set) k) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Former France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (Pages 114- 115, relevant page 115 of judgment set) l) Berger Paints India Ltd, V/s Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 245 ITR 645 CAL-HC (Pages 116-122, relevant page 116 of judgment set) m) Shri Abhay Singh Chautalavs ACIT in ITA No. 522/Chd/2015 dated 06,03.2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

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

ITA 315/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

….03.2017 which is after four years of relevant assessment year i.e., 2010-11, the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 is bad in law. In this connection we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France [264 ITR 566] for the proposition that "where an assessment was already completed Uls 143(3) such assessment cannot be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in which the assessment was completed" when there is no failure to file return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts. We also rely on the decisio…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 192/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

….03.2017 which is after four years of relevant assessment year i.e., 2010-11, the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 is bad in law. In this connection we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France [264 ITR 566] for the proposition that "where an assessment was already completed Uls 143(3) such assessment cannot be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in which the assessment was completed" when there is no failure to file return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts. We also rely on the decisio…

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2009-10 NXP India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Successor of NXP Semiconductors of Income Tax, India Pvt. Ltd.), Circle 5(1)(1), Information Technology Park, Bangalore. Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nagawara, Bangalore – 560 045. PAN: AADCP 9454H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…48 held that “when any particular issue has been considered by the ITO and Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and when there is no failure to disclose the facts, the re- assessment proceedings are not valid.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foraner France 264 ITR 566 held that “re-assessment – not on basis of mere change of opinion”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956 held that “no case under section 148 is made-out when the facts were known all along with the Revenue while making the original assessment.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Stone Indus…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…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.),…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)46 (Bangalore – Trib.) 4. According to the ld.AR that as per the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act there is an assessment under Section 143(3) or 147 of the Act has already been completed for the relevant assessment yea…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -22(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Sanjay Sunil Bajaj, Mumbai

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

ITA 2381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194CSection 40

…wance of Rs.5,11,23,710/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), MJ Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom), Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 (Del) held that : “I have perused the details filed by the appellant. The AO during the original assessment proceedings had called for the details of the labour charges paid and the reasons for the non-deduction of TDS on the same.…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)46 (Bangalore – Trib.) 4. According to the ld.AR that as per the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act there is an assessment under Section 143(3) or 147 of the Act has already been completed for the relevant assessment yea…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)46 (Bangalore – Trib.) 4. According to the ld.AR that as per the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act there is an assessment under Section 143(3) or 147 of the Act has already been completed for the relevant assessment yea…

Nava Bharat Ventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhassessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

…ITA No 384 of 2018 Nav Bharat Ventures Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year:2009-10 Nava Bharat Ventures Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(1) PAN:AAACN7327C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri V. Shiva Kumar Revenue by: Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of hearing: 01/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 04/09/2020 ORDER Per D.S. Sunder Singh, A.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 against the o…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…by an order of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore reopening does not survive on the said issue as well. 4.8 The appellant also relied on a large number of case laws on the issue of reopening some of which are mentioned herein under:- 1. Former France, 264 ITR 567(SC) 2. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) 3. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, 220 ITR 194 (Gujrat) document1 4. Jindal Photofilms Ltd. 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 5. Berger Paints India Ltd. 245 ITR 645(Cal) and Mercury Travels Ltd, 258 ITR 533(Cal) 6. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. Voltas Limited. 349 ITR 656 (Bom) 8. Manjush…

Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 668/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. Tanmac India vs. DCIT, (2019) 97 CCH 189 (Mad) 03. Principal CIT vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, (2018) 99’ taxmann. com 206 (SC). ITA Nos.667 &668/19…

Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. Tanmac India vs. DCIT, (2019) 97 CCH 189 (Mad) 03. Principal CIT vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, (2018) 99’ taxmann. com 206 (SC). ITA Nos.667 &668/19…

Aries Agro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court, in the case of Hari Iron Trading company vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (Punjab and Haryana). The assessee has also relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. CIT vs. Foramer France [(2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC)] 2. Precilion Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT (IT) [(2019) 103 taxmann.com 291 (Bom)] 3. DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. [(2017) 394-ITR 547 (Delhi)] 4. Tao Publishing (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2015) 370 ITR 135 [(Bom)] 5. Sound Casting (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom.)] 6. Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 345 ITR 91 (…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Lakhani, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 147Section 148

…truly all material facts for its assessment. Now, we will deal with the case laws. We noted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee 8. and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), wherein the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is 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…

M/S.Samkit Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3980/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer V. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aakfs 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer v. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AAKFS 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Pelican Credits & Scurities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

ITA 2413/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to this assessment and due to that reason the income has escaped assessment. 9. To support our view, we follow the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), wherein it has taken the view that the first proviso to section 147 of the ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 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 o…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…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”. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Foramer France [2003 264 ITR 566]. Similar view has been expressed by our jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT [308 ITR 195] wherein it has been observed as under: - 9. It is clear from the observations made above that the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken a view that in a situation where according to the Assessing Officer he failed…