CIT v. Hardware Trading Co.

248 ITR 673High Court2001#17366 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hardware Trading Co.

ACIT, Non Corporate Circle - 7(1), Chennai vs. A.Thiagarajan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2112/Chny/2017 & C.O. No. 164/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.2112/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs Mr. A.Thiagarajan The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.67, Akshya Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Padi, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 098. Pan: Aabpt 1461F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent /Cross Objector) : Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : 04.04.2022 सुनवाईक"तार!ख/Date Of Hearing : 12. 04.2022 घोषणाक"तार!ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 04.04.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

…has discussed the issue in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardware Trading Company Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 673 and held that note ‘not to the assessee’ from records of the Assessing Officer implied that he had very clearly and definitely formed an opinion on the issue and thus, reopening of assessment on the very same issue in absence of any fresh tangible material amounts to change of opinion. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:…

Shri. G. Mallikarjuna Naidu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 78/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT

Section 129Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 234A

…(2010) 320 ITR 561 wherein Hon’ble court held initiation of Page 7 of 9 reassessment proceedings to be not proper, when no tangible material came to the possession of the Ld.AO. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Hardware Trading & Co. reported in 248 ITR 673 has followed the said ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra). Before us, Ld. A.R. placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Infosys Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2019) 416 ITR 226, wherein Canteen of decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court have been referred to a…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1566/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 147

…his position is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). Attention was also drawn to a decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardware Trading Co., 248 ITR 673 (Karn) laying down identical proposition. 19. The ld. DR submitted that in the original order of assessment, the AO had not made any discussion with regard to applicability of section 45(2) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that there was any expression of opinion in the order originally passed u/s.143(3). It was his submission that ther…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/205/2015HC Karnataka16 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). Attention was also drawn to a decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 23 in the case of CIT Vs. Hardware Trading Co., 248 ITR 673 (Karn) laying down identical proposition. 19. The ld. DR submitted that in the original order of assessment, the AO had not made any discussion with regard to applicability of section 45(2) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that there was any expression of opinion in the order originally passed u/s. 143(3). It was his submissi…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. M/S Post & Bsnl Employees

The appeal is dismissed

RP/205/2015HC Karnataka24 Jul 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)