CIT v. Jagson International Ltd.

321 ITR 544High Court#20592 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagson International Ltd.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision the case of CIT Vs Jagson International Ltd ( 321 ITR 544). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no fresh materials before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings u/s.147 and that the reopening of the assessment was due to reappraisal of the facts already on record. 5. The CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(iii). 6. The CIT(A) erred in…

M/S. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 317/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision the case of CIT Vs Jagson International Ltd ( 321 ITR 544). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no fresh materials before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings u/s.147 and that the reopening of the assessment was due to reappraisal of the facts already on record. 5. The CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(iii). 6. The CIT(A) erred in…

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORIENTAL CARBON & CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1682/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n) Similar views were expressed by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in the following cases: (1) Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs DCIT - [2013] 81 DTR 10 (Del) (ii) Aventis Pharma Ltd. Vs ACIT - [2010J 323 ITR 570 (Bom) `(iii) CIT Vs Jagson International Ltd - [201 OJ 321 ITR 544 (Del) (iv) Asteroids Trading and Investments P. Ltd. Vs DCIT - [2009] 308 ITR 190 (Bom) From the aforesaid judgements it can be seen that even in cases of reopening of assessment within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to have some new or fresh tangible material, which would warrant taking a view dif…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. VOITH PAPER FABRICS INDIA LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6719/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd, Vs. Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 113-114A, New Cgo Complex, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aabcp0441Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Kr. Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17

…ent and accordingly there was no tangible material in possession of the AO to justify initiation of reassessment. 23. Reliance may further be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagson International Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 544 where the ratio has been followed that if no new information/material had come to the AO after completing the original assessment to form any belief about the escapement of the assessee's income and that the purported belief was entirely based on re-appraisal or re-consideration of the material/information already available on record at the time…

CIT v. Jagson International Ltd. (321 ITR 544) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax