CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited

249 ITR 306Supreme Court of India2001#3265 most cited

What is CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited authority for?

For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, not merely a reason to suspect. The Assessing Officer needs tangible material to form this belief.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Lucas TVS Ltd 249 ITR 306 · section 147 · reason to believe · reason to suspect · tangible material · reopening assessment · income escaping assessment · ITO v Lakhnani Mewaldas · Prashant S Joshi v ITO

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)test of enduring benefitsection 35ddsection 72asection 147(a)section 115jaasection 2(31)true and full disclosuresection 39section 54ecresulting companysection 114

Judgments citing CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e contended that the\njurisdiction is having a reason to suspect but there is no\nreasons to believe and relied upon the Supreme Court's\njudgment ITO Vs LakhnaniMewaldas 103 ITR 437, Kelvinator\nof India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS\nLtd 249 ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the\njudgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 to contend\nthat the AO was not having tangible material before him for\nreopening. Assessee also stated that the information of Sales\nTax Department is also irrelevant as Sales Tax Department is\nmore concern with set of taken by dealers under MVAT Act\nan…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e contended that the\njurisdiction is having a reason to suspect but there is no\nreasons to believe and relied upon the Supreme Court's\njudgment ITO Vs LakhnaniMewaldas 103 ITR 437, Kelvinator\nof India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS\nLtd 249 ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the\njudgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 to contend\nthat the AO was not having tangible material before him for\nreopening. Assessee also stated that the information of Sales\nTax Department is also irrelevant as Sales Tax Department is\nmore concern with set of taken by dealers under MVAT Act\nan…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…03 ITR 437, Kelvinator Rajnish Bharti HUF ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941 4377/MUM/2023 of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS Ltd 249 ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the judgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO judgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 to contend 324 ITR 154 to contend that the AO was not having tangible material before him for that the AO was not having tangib…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…03 ITR 437, Kelvinator Rajnish Bharti HUF ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941 4377/MUM/2023 of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS of India Ltd 320 /TR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs Lucas TVS Ltd 249 ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the ITR 306. The assessee thereafter relied on the judgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO judgment of Prashant S. Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 to contend 324 ITR 154 to contend that the AO was not having tangible material before him for that the AO was not having tangib…

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2748/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

…m) taxmann.com 181 (Bom) and Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Indian & Eastern Newspaper and Supreme Court in the case of Society vs CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996(SC) Society vs CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996(SC) and CIT Vs Lucas TVS CIT Vs Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). The learned DR on the other hand . The learned DR on the other hand submitted that in the reasons recorded submitted that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has the Assessing Officer has clearly specified that expenses incurred on advertisement and clearly specified that expenses incurred on advertise…

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2747/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

…m) taxmann.com 181 (Bom) and Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Indian & Eastern Newspaper and Supreme Court in the case of Society vs CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996(SC) Society vs CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996(SC) and CIT Vs Lucas TVS CIT Vs Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). The learned DR on the other hand . The learned DR on the other hand submitted that in the reasons recorded submitted that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has the Assessing Officer has clearly specified that expenses incurred on advertisement and clearly specified that expenses incurred on advertise…

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…Audit Party on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, for the purpose of reopening an assessment. This view has been also confirmed in various other decisions viz. i. CIT v/s Lucas T.V.S. Limited. 249 ITR 306 (SC), ii. Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v/s. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), iii. Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanawala HUF v/s ITO 287 ITR 443 ( Born.), iv. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd v/s. DCIT 74 Taxmann.com 260, v. Adani Exports v/s DCIT 240 ITR 224 (Guj.), vi. Rajalakshmi Textile processors ltd, v/s. CIT 235 ITR 178 (Mad.), vii. CIT v/s Ram M…

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…Audit Party on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, for the purpose of reopening an assessment. This view has been also confirmed in various other decisions viz. i. CIT v/s Lucas T.V.S. Limited. 249 ITR 306 (SC), ii. Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v/s. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), iii. Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanawala HUF v/s ITO 287 ITR 443 ( Born.), iv. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd v/s. DCIT 74 Taxmann.com 260, v. Adani Exports v/s DCIT 240 ITR 224 (Guj.), vi. Rajalakshmi Textile processors ltd, v/s. CIT 235 ITR 178 (Mad.), vii. CIT v/s Ram M…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…Audit Party on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, for the purpose of reopening an assessment. This view has been also confirmed in various other decisions viz. i. CIT v/s Lucas T.V.S. Limited. 249 ITR 306 (SC), ii. Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v/s. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), iii. Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanawala HUF v/s ITO 287 ITR 443 ( Born.), iv. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd v/s. DCIT 74 Taxmann.com 260, v. Adani Exports v/s DCIT 240 ITR 224 (Guj.), vi. Rajalakshmi Textile processors ltd, v/s. CIT 235 ITR 178 (Mad.), vii. CIT v/s Ram M…

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…Audit Party on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, for the purpose of reopening an assessment. This view has been also confirmed in various other decisions viz. i. CIT v/s Lucas T.V.S. Limited. 249 ITR 306 (SC), ii. Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v/s. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), iii. Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanawala HUF v/s ITO 287 ITR 443 ( Born.), iv. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd v/s. DCIT 74 Taxmann.com 260, v. Adani Exports v/s DCIT 240 ITR 224 (Guj.), vi. Rajalakshmi Textile processors ltd, v/s. CIT 235 ITR 178 (Mad.), vii. CIT v/s Ram M…

SHIV SHAKTI TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2877/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

…expenditure in the original assessment and impugned disallowance subsequently in order under section 154 is in excess of jurisdiction. The assessee brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that opinion of audit party cannot confer jurisdiction for reimbursement under section 154 of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO by observing, inter alia that section 40A(3) is mandatory provision of law which had been overlooked in the original assessment under section 143(3) of the…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…lure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid.” - CIT vs. Lucas TVS Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC): “If there is no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts, wrong interpretation of accounts by AO leading to relief cannot be a ground for reopening and, thus, cannot confer jurisdiction on AO. The reason for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with the information received. Rational con…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…lure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid.” - CIT vs. Lucas TVS Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC): “If there is no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts, wrong interpretation of accounts by AO leading to relief cannot be a ground for reopening and, thus, cannot confer jurisdiction on AO. The reason for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with the information received. Rational con…

ITO 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL PROP. M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 989/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

…fied at all. The same, in our considered opinion is merely a change of opinion and therefore bad in law, void ab initio and without any jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. The judgment relied upon by Ld. AR in the case of Lucas TVS Limited (2001) 249 ITR 306 (supra) passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is 6 Santosh Agrawal squarely applies for the instant case which we find has been duly taken care of by the Ld. CIT(A) while quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O. Thus in the absence of any new material which can lead to reassessment proceedings by the Ld. A.O particularly when the…

RAJLAXMI POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2730/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Vs Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5024,World Trade Centre, Ward -2 (1)(1), Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Pan : Aabcr 1210 M Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Sapnesh Sheth Ca/Ar Revenue By Ms. Anupma Singla Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2020

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Court Hearing) Vs Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5024,World Trade Centre, Ward -2 (1)(1), Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat, Ring Road, Surat-395002 PAN : AABCR 1210 M Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Sapnesh Sheth CA/AR Revenue by Ms. Anupma Singla Sr DR Date of hearing 17/12/2020 Date of pronouncement 21/12/2020 Order under section 254(1) of Income-tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income-tax Act (Ac…

INCOME TAX 11(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SONU SYNTHETIC LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5291/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/s. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AADCS5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.42/M/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/s. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6,…

SANATAN DHARAM SHIKSHA SAMITTEE,HARYANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A No.871/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Vs. Income Tax Officer Samittee, (Exemption), Rohtak. C/S. S. D. Public School, Narwana, Distt. Jind, Haryana- 126116. [Pan: Aaets 6172 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reopening of the assessment on the ground that it was reopened based on audit objection and it amounts to mere change of opinion, therefore, it was not warranted under the Law. Reliance was also placed on the decision of CIT vs. Lucas TVS Ltd., [2001] 249 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it was held that a opinion of the audit party regarding application or interpretation of law is not information, and as such, a reassessment based on opinion of audit party is not valid. It was further contended that the AO while framing assessment u/s.143(3) has considered the fact about the assessee Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samitt…

M/S. LVMH WATCH & JEWELLERY INDIA P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1111/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Vikas Srivastava, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 271

…3 3. Transworld International Inc. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 142 TAXMAN 35 (Delhi) 4. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Union of India 2012 (114) Bom. L.R. 2724, observed as under: 5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. T.V.S Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 306 (SC) 6. ITO vs. Satya Prakash Agarwal, (ITA No. 3729/Del/2011) I have discussed the matter with the ARs and convinced them that there should be some remedy for disposal of audit objection by the Assessment Officer or by the department, so such legal issues like non-reopening u/s 148 should not be viewed seriously. It is better to go on the merits…

M/S. GIRISH ROLLED PRODUCTS & ALLOYS LTD., ,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2319/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2319/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Girish Rolled Products & Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Kolkata – 69. Alloys Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee City Centre, 4Th Floor, 63/2, The Mall, Square, Kolkata – 69. Kanpur- 208001 (U.P) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 0137 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…/s 148 of the Act. It is well established principle of law that resort to proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 cannot be had to on a question of law raised by audit party. This law has been laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it was held as follows : “An audit opinion in regard to the application or interpretation of law cannot be treated as information for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b).” M/s. Girish Rolled Products & Alloys Ltd. Assessment Year: 2006-07 In view of the above position in law proceedings set in motion with the issuance of noti…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…is for issuance of notice/reopening of assessment is based upon the audit objection. In such scenario, following cases throws light upon the issue whether reopening can be done on the basis of audit objection. In the case of CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC), order dated 05/12/2000, wherein reassessment was done on the basis of information that income has escaped assessment in the opinion of audit party regarding application or interpretation of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that reassessment based on opinion of audit party is not valid. The Hon'ble Court held as under:- “From the decisio…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2