CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536High Court2013#204 most cited

What is CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

366

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(1) · fresh tangible material · reason to believe · escapement of income · mere change of opinion · live link · reopening of assessment

Also reported as

29 Taxmann.com 392

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 143(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialkelvinatorbeyond four yearsmaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147mere change of opinionlive linkchange of opiniontangible materialshort term capital gainsreason to believeescapement of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-I vs. M/S. Indo Arab Air Services

ITA/292/2015HC Delhi20 Oct 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

…ITA Nos. 292 of 2015 & 299 of 2015 Page 1 of 14 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 292/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-I .... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel. versus M/S. INDO ARAB AIR SERVICES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roopali Gupta and Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates. + ITA 299/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I .... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel. versus R…

M/S Maria Seva Sangha, Bangalore vs. Asst.D, I, T, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Smt M.R.Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…recorded that there is any tangible material which came to the possession of AO subsequent to the issue of intimation. It is worthwhile to mention here the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision 12 ITA No.102(B)14 in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 wherein, the Hon’ble Court observed as under: “S. 147 permits an assessment to be reopened if there is “reason to believe“. It makes no distinction between an order u/s 143(3) or an Intimation u/s 143(1). Accordingly, it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words “reason to believe” vis-à-vis s. 143(1) and s. 14…

M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…e no. 30 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Del) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) " Shipra Srivastava Vs ACIT 319 ITR 221 (Del) " Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 (TM) (Mum) order dated 12.05.2010 16. It was further submitted that all the information were furnished by the assessee to the AO. Therefore, the reassessment framed was only a change…

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

…has examined the above issue as well. The ITAT relied essentially on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of 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…

Padmapriya Real Estate, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2145/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…e under Section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2007. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment due to change of opinion. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is a partnership firm dealing in real estate business. The assessee is managing properties apart from buying and selling of lands and leasing/letting out of properties. The assessee claimed rental income from the properties as income from business. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim o…

ITO, Chengalput vs. Murugan Arul Enterprises, Chennai

ITA 2631/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. C.P.Ramaswami, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…he Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) to decide the issue of reopening as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd., reported as 354 ITR 536 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported as 291 ITR 500 and the - - 3 ITA 2631/14 decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Idea; Garden Complex P. Ltd., reported as 340 ITR 609. Consequent to the directions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner o…