CIT v. Jyoti Devi

218 CTR 264High Court2008#8475 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Jyoti Devi

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…CIT: 269 ITR 186 (Bom) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 200 (Bom) - Grindwell Norton vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 673 (Bom) - - CIT v. Abdul Rahman Sait: 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) - Asteroids Trading and Investment P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 308 ITR 190 (Bom.) - CIT v. JyotiDevi; 218 CTR 264 (Raj.) - Cartinilndia Ltd.: 224 CTR 82 (Bom) - CIT v. Mittal Casting Ltd.; 124 Taxman 11 (Del.) 19. In the facts of the present case, as stated supra, it is reiterated that undisputedly no new information/ material came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the completion of assessment. In the reasons recorded, the assessing of…

MR. ABHIJEET SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-16(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2920/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 148

…whether the reopening of assessment amounts to review or change of opinion" arises. In other words, if there are no reasons to believe" based on new, "tangible materials, then the reopening amounts to an impermissible review" In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court heldthat since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. In the case of CIT vs…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…lacitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti vi) 218 CTR 264 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi vii) A.Y. 2003-04 dated 31.10.2011 Mahishadal Cooperative Marketing & Society Ltd. vs. ITO 80 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, viii) ITA No.2230/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2001-02 dated 7.10.2011 H.V. Transmissions Ltd. vs. ITO ix) ITA Nos 898/D/2008…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…lacitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti vi) 218 CTR 264 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi vii) A.Y. 2003-04 dated 31.10.2011 Mahishadal Cooperative Marketing & Society Ltd. vs. ITO 80 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, viii) ITA No.2230/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2001-02 dated 7.10.2011 H.V. Transmissions Ltd. vs. ITO ix) ITA Nos 898/D/2008…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…lacitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti vi) 218 CTR 264 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi vii) A.Y. 2003-04 dated 31.10.2011 Mahishadal Cooperative Marketing & Society Ltd. vs. ITO 80 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, viii) ITA No.2230/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2001-02 dated 7.10.2011 H.V. Transmissions Ltd. vs. ITO ix) ITA Nos 898/D/2008…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…lacitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti vi) 218 CTR 264 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi vii) A.Y. 2003-04 dated 31.10.2011 Mahishadal Cooperative Marketing & Society Ltd. vs. ITO 80 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, viii) ITA No.2230/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2001-02 dated 7.10.2011 H.V. Transmissions Ltd. vs. ITO ix) ITA Nos 898/D/2008…

SHRI SANTOSH JAGATI,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4752/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Santosh Jagati, Vs. Ito, Anupam Hotel, Nainital, Mallital, Nainital. (Pan: Aavpj4767C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Was Not Justified In Confirming The Assessing Officers Action U/S. 148. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact That All Necessary Details Regarding Letting Out Of Property On Rent & Of The Property Sold-(Land With The Building Constructed Thereon) Were Already On Record While Processing The Return U/S. 143(1) Or Rectifying The Same U/S. 154. 2. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Misunderstood The Whole Facts & Confused Himself Between The Property Inherited From An Ancestor Before 1.04.1981 & The Property Acquired By The Appellant Himself. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…ns to belief that the aforementioned amount had escaped assessment and consequently issued notice to the assessee under sec. 148 of the Act. The ITAT relying on the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi (2008) 218 CTR 264(Raj.) answered the issue in favour of the assessee. After discussing several decisions on the issue, the Hon’ble Court has upheld the decision of the ITAT on the issue and the appeal preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed. 8 9. When we examine the facts of the present case, in view of the ratios laid down in the above cited decisions, we fi…

GAS & POWER INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1118/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer RathiFor Respondent: Miss Bharti Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 43BSection 619B

…1 AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. Hon’ble Madras High…

TARA CHAND JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Tara Chand Jain -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ackpj1876H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 6.15. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. 6.16. Hon’ble Madra…

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Infrastructure Leasing & Acit-10(1), Financial Services Ltd., The Il बनाम/ Mumbai - & Fs Centre, G. Glock, C-22, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaci0989F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 3.17. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. 3.18. Hon’ble Madra…

GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD ( FORMERLY GTC INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

ITA 5859/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Gupta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 6.15. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. 6.16. Hon’ble Madra…

GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD ( FORMERLY GTC INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

ITA 5858/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Gupta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 6.15. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not valid. 6.16. Hon’ble Madra…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09 vs. TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD

ITA/415/2015HC Delhi10 Aug 2015
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

…Income 2015:DHC:6392-DB ITA No. 415 of 2015 Page 5 of 11 Tax v. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Jyoti Devi (2008) 218 CTR 264 to answer the issue in favour of the Assessee. 11. The case sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal is that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500, an intimation under Section 143 (1) is not an assessment. The acceptance of t…