How many judgments cite CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd. (372 ITR 762), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 69C, Section 127, Section 132.

CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.

372 ITR 762High Court2015#5597 most cited

What is CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are vitiated by a "change of opinion" if the Assessing Officer had applied their mind during the original assessment and the reopening is based on oversight or mistake, not on fresh tangible material.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · change of opinion · tangible material · oversight · mistake · assessment procedure

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 531

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 69C Section 127 Section 132 Section 148A Section 149

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator change of opinion tangible material reopening of assessment escapement of income reason to believe reassessment proceedings notice under section 148 section 143(1)section 148 section 147 section 143

Judgments citing CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Faridkot, Bsnl Building vs. M/S Vohra Solvex Pvt. Ltd, Sadiq Road

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s Vohra Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1, Faridkot Sadiq Road, Faridkot, Punjab 151203 [PAN: AABCV 6919K] (Respondent) (Appellant) C. O. No. 3/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Vohra Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi, Sadiq Road, Faridkot, Punjab JAO, Income Tax Officer, 151203 Ward 1, Faridkot [PAN: AABCV 6919K] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. S…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

…covered by the decision of this Court in favour of the respondent assessee. (k). In the above view, the question (i) as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.” 13. In the case of CIT v. Jet Speed Audio P. Ltd., [372 ITR 762] the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay seized with the following substantial question of law: “(A) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 and holding the same as bad in law ? (B) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 770/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Lovely Promoters Private ACIT, Limited Central Circle, Vs. 47A 47A, 3rd Floor Zakaria Ajmer. Street, Kolkata-700073. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCL1338C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.) jktLo…

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.865 /JP/2019 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2008-09 M/s Hanuman Tube Well Co. cuke DCIT, Vs. 10, Station Road, Circle-3, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFH 5769 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) & Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2048/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan : Aaacf1034E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, M/s. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, DSIDC Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. PAN : AAACF1034E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Revenue by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv Assessee by: Date of Hearing 31/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 30/01/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : ITA. No. 2048 (Del) of 2017 is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9 (1) New Delhi, against the o…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

…of law. The learned AR in support of his contention referred to various case laws as detailed under: i- Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s DCIT (BOM HC) (301 ITR 407) ii- Asian Paints Ltd. v/s DCIT (BOM HC) (308 ITR 195) iii- CIT v/s Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (BOM HC) (372 ITR 762) iv- State Bank of India (Mumbai) v/s ACIT writ petition no. 271 of 2018 10.4 The learned AR also claimed that the tribunal in the own case of the assessee involving identical facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 145/MUM/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 29th of July 2011. On the…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh vs. T & T Projects Ltd., Guwahati

In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal

ITA 208/GTY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Gau/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…sessee had failed to fully and truly disclosed all primary facts for completion of its assessment. We note that when primary facts were already disclosed, Assessing Officer has no power to review and reopen the assessment.[ClT v Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 762 ]. Hence, it is rather a settled position of law that when primary materials were already with the AO at the time of original assessment, there is no power for reviewing of the same. We note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional Guwahati High Court had occasion to deal with similar kind of issue in the case of CIT Vs. Sonitpur SolvexLtd.[2013] 352 ITR 305.…

Sri Rabindra Nath Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as refunded on same day while there was some dispute regarding land. Further, the brokerage income arising out of land business were also routed through the same bank. 8. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.,(2015) 372 ITR 762 has held that the power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing assessment order, it is expected of the Assessing Officer that he will apply mind and pass an order. If the Assessing Officer had considered and formed an opinion on the material in the original assessment itself then he would be powerless to…

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atc India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2620/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax -9(2) Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue Through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr Dr Versus M/S Atc India Tower Corporation, 404, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 Pan: Aajcs7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee Through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve For Order : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Dated 22Nd January 2016, Which Arise From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Dated 25Th March 2013 For Assessment Year

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…relied on the decision of CIT Vs Kalvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC), Aroni 5 ATC India Tower Corporation Pvt Ltd Commercial Ltd Vs DCIT (2014) 362ITR 403 (Bom), Aroni Commercial Ltd Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 405 (Bom), CIT Vs Jet Speed Audio P. Ltd 372 ITR 762(Bom), ITO Versus TechSpan India (P)Ltd [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC), CIT Versus Reliance Communication Infrastructure (2013) 212 ITR 177 (Bom), CIT Versus Virtual Soft System Ltd (2018) 92 taxmann.com 370 (SC), CIT Versus Nimbus Communication Ltd ITA No. 4244/2010 dated 18th December 2011, Nimbus Communication Ltd Versus ACIT 38 SOT 246(Bombay)…

Sh. Gurmeet Kumar Verma, Barnala vs. ITO, W-1, Barnala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHES ‘SMD’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Gurmeet Kumar Verma, Vs The ITO, Prop. M/s Luxmi Tile House, Ward-1, Dhanaula Road, Barnala. Barnala. PAN : AKXPK8892R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, CA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16.7.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 02.11.2017 of CIT(A)-3 Ludh…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…Vs Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 395 ITR 677 (Del.) " CIT Vs RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del.) " R.P. Foam Home (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in WP(C) 7601/2017 dated 29.08.2017 " Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT 398 ITR 198 " CIT Vs M/s Jet Speed Audio (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) " M/s M. S. Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2708/Del/2016 " Basesar Properties (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 5750 & 5751/Del/2016 order dated 18.08.2017 " Zikarpur Estate (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in " Chuugmal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha reporte in 79 ITR 603 (SC) " Pr. CIT Vs N.C. Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015 order dated11.01.2017 7 Gorika Inves…

DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anvil Fintrade P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5169/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5169/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri D. K. Shivaram&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…arlier, is erroneous. CO No. 14/Mum/2018 Anvil Fintrade Pvt. Ltd. 11. In view of the above impugned notice dated 29th March 2004 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside." Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio (P.) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom)(HC) the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the departmental appeal on the ground that reassessment order u/s.147 of the same ground of bad debts and without recording any tangible material was unjustified. Hence, the order passed by ITAT quashing the assessment order has been approved. 3.4. Respectfully, following the decision…

Fl Smidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 393/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 393/Ch/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Fls Automation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

For Appellant: ShriG. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…further submitted that the reassessment made on the ground different from reasons recorded in notice is not valid. In this regard, he invited our attention to para 11 of the reassessment order and relied on the ratios reported in 331 ITR 236, 349 ITR 482 and 372 ITR 762. He has also relied on the Board Circular No 3/2015 dated 12.02.2015 reported in 371 ITR 359 (ST) to say that the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(i) is without jurisdiction. Per contra, the DR supported the order of the AO and the order of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the rival submissions, gone through relevant orders and material. The rel…

M/S. Jaya Mangala Construction, Koraput vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jeypore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/CTK/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan , DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 44A

…s.143(1) of the Act, no new material had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to evidence the fact of escapement of income chargeable to tax of the assessee. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.,(2015) 372 ITR 762 has held that the power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing assessment order, it is expected of the Assessing Officer that he will apply Asse ssment Year :20 05- 06 mind and pass an order. If the Assessing Officer had considered and formed an opinion on the material in the original assessment itself th…

Manas Kumar Swain, Keonjhar vs. ITO, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-10

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…Act on 21.12.2011 that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment so as to trigger the reopening of assessment made u/s.147 of the Act. Asse ssment Year :20 09- 10 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt Ltd.,(2015) 372 ITR 762 has held that the power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing assessment order, it is expected of the Assessing Officer that he will apply mind and pass an order. If the Assessing Officer had considered and formed an opinion on the material in the original assessment itself then he would be powerless to s…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…s:- • Aventis Ph arm a Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) • CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. ( 348 ITR 485)(Delhi) • Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) • Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) • CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) • Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.) • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT 366 ITR 115(Delhi) • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536(Delhi) • Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. J. P. Janjid 5 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., (2014) 225 Taxman 81(Mag.) (Bom) 9. It was also contended by learned AR that subsequently Assessi…

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5383/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5383/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 221/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 1OSection 271Section 35(1)(vi)

…ecisions, the copies of which have been filed before us which are as under:- a) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); b) ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 299 (SC); c) CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom); ITA 5383/M/12 & ITA 221/M/14 10 d) Lalitha Chem Industries P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 364 ITR 213 (Bom) e) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom); f) ACIT v. ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 41 CCH 162 (Mum)(Trib); g) Shri Sunil Gavaskar [ITA No. 3970 & 3971IMuml20 1 0] at paras 11.4 to 11.7 on pages 16 to 18; On…

Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…y on the basis of change of opinion, more so when the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act after due application of mind. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. vs ACIT (324 ITR 240)(Bom.), Titanor components Ltd. vs ACIT (243 CTR 520)(Bom.) supports our view. The material facts were duly made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. Even assuming that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind, assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Act merely on th…

Lawkim Ltd ( Now Merged With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali GodboleFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5092/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2002-03 वष" Lawkim Ltd.(Now merged with Godrej & The Income tax Officer Boyce Co.Ltd.) Ward-10(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan C/o. Kalyaniwala & Mistry, Chartered M.K. Road Vs. Accountants, Kalpataru Heritage, Mumbai-400 020. 1…