How many judgments cite CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (249 ITR 306), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 149.

CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited

249 ITR 306Supreme Court of India2001#3260 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 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 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)test of enduring benefit section 35dd section 72a section 147(a)section 115jaa section 2(31)true and full disclosure section 39 section 54ec resulting company section 114

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

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/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…

Anil Kumar Goel, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3142/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…that thus, the re-opening was done only on the dictate of the audit party and the Ld.CIT and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT: 119 ITR 997 (SC) and also CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) re-assessment was based on the opinion of audit party was not permissible and was liable to be quashed. 7. At this point, it was informed to the Ld.AR that as the re-opening had two issues. One in regard to the treatment of the long term capital gains disclosed by the assessee as business income and the second one :- 6 -: being the disal…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…o well settled audit objection cannot be the basis of issue of notice u/sl48 for reassessment proceedings: Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC). Exchange Ahmedabad vs. ACIT (1997) 227 ITR 906 (Guj) CIT vs. Lucuns TVS Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC) Purity Tech Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom) Adani Exports vs. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 224 (G uj) Asian Cere Information Services (P)Ltd. v. ITO (2007) 293 ITR 271 (Bom) 23. That in view of the above, it is therefore submitted that: i. the issue of the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is bad and legally untenable as the…

Mayur P Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1640/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Mayur P Jain Income Tax Officer 1101 Chaitya Tower 81, Shivdas Ward No. 22(2)(2) Chapsi Marg, Mazgaon Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 010 Pan No. Aegpj1871E Appellant .. Respondent .. Dr. P Daniel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…t in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 308 (Delhi) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj) and also Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of 247 ITR (13) SC and 102 ITR 287 SC. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the original assessment was completed u/ s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-12-2011. Subsequently, due to audit objection th…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as infructuous and cross objection filed by the assessee for Asst

ITA 6102/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6102/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Dcit- 24(3), Vs. M/S. Gundecha Builders, Room No. 702, C-11, 7Th Floor, 141, Gudecha House, B.K.C, Bandra (E), Jawahar Naga, Mumbai-400 051. Goregaon(W), Mumbai- 400 062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafg0848E .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri. Dharshan Ghandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 80I

…e abuse of such authority.” 9 CO No. 122/MUM/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 13. In the light of the said judgment reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely on the basis of audit objection by the revenue team. Further In CIT Vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in which the High Court had quashed the reopening proceedings wherein apart from the information furnished by the audit party, the Income Tax Officer had not other information for reopening the assessment. In Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 9…

The ACIT, Cicle -4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Narottamdas Enterprises Poddar Plaza, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 16

…1 and Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Usha International Limited, (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 200; and M/s. Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. ACIT, (2014, 44 Taxmann.com 353 (Guj). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas TVS,(2001) 249 ITR 306 ( S.C.) held that opinion of audit party regarding application or interpretation of law is not information within the meaning of Section 147(b) hence reassessment based on opinion of audit party is invalid. The ld. CIT(A) held as under :- “3.2 It is evident from entry tax account as appearing in the books of the appellant and profit and loss a…

Sh. Ishwar Singh, Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2948/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 36

…rt in the case of Berger paints India Limited vs Asstt. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 369 (Cal.). It was further submitted that in the absence of any new material, the re-assessment cannot stand in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on CIT vs Lukas T.V.S.Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 306 (SC). 3.1. Even on merit, it was submitted that the re-opening is not justifiable as the assessee gave the interest free advances to his Son and Nephew of Rs.39,25,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- respectively out of his own capital account of Rs.22,67,876/-; unsecured interest free loans of Rs.26,22,585/- and sundry creditors of Rs.1,10,05,262/-. Thu…

Sh. Ishwar Singh, Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2947/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 36

Nco Extrusions Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3662/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3662/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nico Extrusions Ltd. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ (Previously Known As Nico Tax – 8 Vs. Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.) Ayakar Bhavan, 12, Niraj Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Off. Mahakali Caves Rd., Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2104R

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd Scripts (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT Hyderabad [2013] 36 taxman.com 348 (AP) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 283 SC and CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 235 CTR 336 (Delhi SC) and CIT Vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in question. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perusing the record, it came into notice that the Assessing Officer did not examine this issue in his order…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ich is not permissible in law. 5. Relying upon the following decisions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessment order is illegal and bad in law: * Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT: 119 ITR 997 (SC) CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) ❖ Adani Exports V. DCIT: 240 ITR 224 (Guj.) ❖ CIT V. Mettur Chemical & Inds. Corpn: 242 ITR 119 (Mad.) ❖ Waldies Limited V. ITO: 246 ITR 29 (Cal.) ❖ ITO V. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd: 247 ITR 122 (Cal.) ❖ CIT V. Sambhar Salt Limited: 262 ITR 675 (Raj.) ❖ The submissions filed by the appellant were forwarded to the assessing officer for com…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Godrej & Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

ITA 1402/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./ Ita/1402/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. Acit-10(2) Pirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai--400 079. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacg 1395 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Amrita Misra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Josh & Ms. Sonalee Godbole(Ar) सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 18.10.2010,Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal,Raising Five Grounds Of Appeal.The First Three Grounds Deal With Re-Opening Of The Assessment & The Other Two Grounds Are About Addition Made U/S.14 A & Computation Of Income U/S.115Jb Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh & Ms. Sonalee Godbole(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Misra (DR)

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,"जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“G”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ ITA/1402/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. ACIT-10(2) Pirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai--400 079. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACG 1395 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Ms. A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lee Pharma Pvt Ltd

ITTA/384/2013HC Telangana30 Aug 2013

Section 147Section 80H

…K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ K.C. BHANU, J 30.8.2013 bnr [1] 119 ITR 996 (SC) [2] 249 ITR 306 (SC)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1391/2009HC Delhi09 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…c. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 273 ITR 242 and also judgments of Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (1979) 119 ITR 996 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 306. 12. The sum and substance of discussion is that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act cannot be initiated merely based on the audit report . An audit is principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the auditor with regard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securin…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1362 / 2009HC Delhi09 Mar 2011

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…itled *Transworld Intelling*. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 242 and also judgments of Supreme Court in Intelligence Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Tax, New Delhi, (1979) 119 ITR 996 and Commissioner Tax v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 306 - 12. The sum and substance of discussion is that real proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the be initiated merely based on the audit report. A principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the aregard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescrib purpose of securing an effective check on the area. ![](_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1391 / 2009HC Delhi09 Mar 2011

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)