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.

Poona Club Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2242/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…shish Shah vs. ITO, 440 ITR 417 (Guj.-HC), wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reiterated the above position after referring to the following decisions :- (i) Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). (iii) Indivest Pte. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT, 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). 12. In the present case, from the reasons recorded it would be clear that the premises on which the Assessing Officer formed an 15 Poona Club Ltd. opinion that the income had escaped assessment is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra), wh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune vs. M/S. Poona Club Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2221/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…shish Shah vs. ITO, 440 ITR 417 (Guj.-HC), wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reiterated the above position after referring to the following decisions :- (i) Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). (iii) Indivest Pte. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT, 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). 12. In the present case, from the reasons recorded it would be clear that the premises on which the Assessing Officer formed an 15 Poona Club Ltd. opinion that the income had escaped assessment is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra), wh…

Poona Club Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1653/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…shish Shah vs. ITO, 440 ITR 417 (Guj.-HC), wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reiterated the above position after referring to the following decisions :- (i) Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). (iii) Indivest Pte. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT, 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). 12. In the present case, from the reasons recorded it would be clear that the premises on which the Assessing Officer formed an 15 Poona Club Ltd. opinion that the income had escaped assessment is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra), wh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Poona Club Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1236/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…shish Shah vs. ITO, 440 ITR 417 (Guj.-HC), wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reiterated the above position after referring to the following decisions :- (i) Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). (iii) Indivest Pte. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT, 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). 12. In the present case, from the reasons recorded it would be clear that the premises on which the Assessing Officer formed an 15 Poona Club Ltd. opinion that the income had escaped assessment is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra), wh…

ITO Ward 3(2), Trichy vs. Ramanathan Vasantha Priya, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41

…ts v. Jt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 37held that in the absence of any new material, the AO is not empowered to reopen an assessment irrespective of the fact whether it was made under sections 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act. 12.6 In the case of Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536(Delhi), it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High court that in the said case, reasons for reassessment disclosed that AO reached belief that there was escapement of income "on going through the return of income" filed by assessee after he accepted return u/s. 143(1) without 15 I.T.A. No. 1979/Chny/2019 scrutiny, and nothing more. In these facts,…

Kumaragiri Steels Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 1501/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1501/Chny/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Kumaragiri Steels Ltd. Vs The Dcit, Company Circle-Ii(4) 235, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai Chennai-600003 Pan No. : Aaack 6083 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Chennai Dated 28.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006- 2007. 2. As Agreed By Both The Parties, First Of All, We Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides On Ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, Which Read As Under :- 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Chennai-600034 Dated 28.03.2014 In I.T.A No.426/2013-14 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Erred Consequently In Confirming The Re-Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R/W Section 147 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit(Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Order Of Re- Assessment Under Consideration Was Passed Out Of Time, Invalid, Passed Without Jurisdiction & Not Sustainable Both On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t of Madras dated 11.07.2019 in the case of Tenzing Match Works Vs. DCIT (MADHC)-TCA No.702/2009 as vehemently relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee and another decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd. (DEL-HC), 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). In these judgments, Their Lordships speaking that Hon’ble High Court has also referred to the various judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the impugned reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2…

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 68

…ct has relied upon the following case laws: (i) Tanmac India v. DCIT (2016) 97 CCH 189 [Madras HC] (ii) PCIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd (ITA 415/2015) [Del. HC] (iii) Prakriya Pharmacem v. ITO (2016) 238 Taxman 185 [Guj.HC] (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 [Del.] 2 I.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd. (v) Dhoot Stono Crafts (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA 243/JPR/2020) [ITAT -Jaipur] (vi) Future Tech IT Systems Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA 1031/CHANDI/2019) [ITAT- Chandigarh]dated 27-04-2021 (vii) Indo Global Techno Trade Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1616/CHD/2018) [ITAT- Chandigarh…

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

….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 and 1434/D/2008 A.Y. 2001-02 dated 28.3.2013 M/s Tera Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO x) 354 ITR 536 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. xi) ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) 153 TTJ 506 (Mum) Delta Air Lines, INC vs. ITO xiii) ITA 112/2014 (Del) CIT vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami xiv) ITA No. 5216/Del/2012 ACIT vs. Sushma Gupta xv) 114 ITD 69 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. O.P. Chawla xvi) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi and Datta…

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

….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 and 1434/D/2008 A.Y. 2001-02 dated 28.3.2013 M/s Tera Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO x) 354 ITR 536 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. xi) ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) 153 TTJ 506 (Mum) Delta Air Lines, INC vs. ITO xiii) ITA 112/2014 (Del) CIT vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami xiv) ITA No. 5216/Del/2012 ACIT vs. Sushma Gupta xv) 114 ITD 69 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. O.P. Chawla xvi) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi and Datta…

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

….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 and 1434/D/2008 A.Y. 2001-02 dated 28.3.2013 M/s Tera Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO x) 354 ITR 536 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. xi) ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) 153 TTJ 506 (Mum) Delta Air Lines, INC vs. ITO xiii) ITA 112/2014 (Del) CIT vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami xiv) ITA No. 5216/Del/2012 ACIT vs. Sushma Gupta xv) 114 ITD 69 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. O.P. Chawla xvi) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi and Datta…

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

….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 and 1434/D/2008 A.Y. 2001-02 dated 28.3.2013 M/s Tera Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO x) 354 ITR 536 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. xi) ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) 153 TTJ 506 (Mum) Delta Air Lines, INC vs. ITO xiii) ITA 112/2014 (Del) CIT vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami xiv) ITA No. 5216/Del/2012 ACIT vs. Sushma Gupta xv) 114 ITD 69 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. O.P. Chawla xvi) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi and Datta…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Ward 3(2)(3), No.290, BEML Layout Cross, 1st Phase, V Stage, Bangalore. Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore – 560 098. PAN: AEJPG 5365D APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.51/Bang/2019 [in ITA No.910/Bang/2019] Assessment year : 2008-09 Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 098. Ward 3(2)(3), PAN: AEJPG 5365D Bangalore. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT / APPELLANT IN APP…

Cmd Ratnakar Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Time Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 118/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sri A.V. Raghuram, DRFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e 3 of 4 ITA No 118 of 2021 Time Projects P Ltd Hyderabad of assessment on ‘change of opinion’ is not allowed. The following decisions are in favour of the appellant on this issue. a) CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 S.C b) CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd 354 ITR 536 (Del.) c) Suryalakshmi Pemmaraju vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No.2222 & 2223/Hyd/2011) d) ESS ESS Constructions vs. ACIT – ITA 632 & 633/Hyd/2012. Respectfully following the law laid as above, it is held that the proceedings u/s 147 are not validly initiated and the consequent order is set-aside. The appellant succeeds on the grounds raised” 4. W…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…reopening notice without satisfaction of the condition precedent of having the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. [(2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del)]. 12. The Ld. AR finally prayed before the bench that keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rushabh Enterprises (which admittedly is based on similar underlying facts and pertaining to the very same group), the reopening of the case may kindly be declared to be invalid and done wholly without jurisdiction and the…

M/S. Emta Coal Ltd., ( Erstwhile Known As M/S. Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency ), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolakta

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…l Electrification SLP No.1835C/2014 decided on 28.08.2017 Rural Electrification SLP No.1835C/2014 decided on 28.08.2017 v) Sound Casting P. ltd. Vs. DCIT 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) Sound Casting P. ltd. Vs. DCIT 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) vi) CIT Vs. Orient Craft ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 356 (Del.) CIT Vs. Orient Craft ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 356 (Del.) vii) CIT Vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapark ltd. ITA No. 1108 CIT Vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapark ltd. ITA No. 1108-1109/2010 dated 03.12.2015 1109/2010 dated 03.12.2015 viii) CIT Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. Of UP Ltd. 332 ITR 0324 CIT Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. Of…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Shri Jitendra Virwani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.341, Embassy Woods, of Income-tax, 6A, Cunningham Road, Central Circle 1(3), Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAVPV 0738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2021 O R D E R Per…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Shri Jitendra Virwani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.341, Embassy Woods, of Income-tax, 6A, Cunningham Road, Central Circle 1(3), Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAVPV 0738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2021 O R D E R Per…

Late Sh. Raj Kumar Wadhwa Through L/H Smt. Usha Wadhwa, Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. Ground No 1 & 4 Being General In Nature Need No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…risdiction to reopen the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act, was bad in law and the order passed as a consequence thereof needed to be quashed. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the following decisions in support: 1) CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 536 (Del) 2) M/s Amit Engineering Vs. ACIT, 156 ITD 556 (Chd.Trib.) 3) M/s Samart Plywood Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.514/Chd/2017 for A.Y.2008-09 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied upon the order of the CIT(A). He drew our attention to the findings of the CIT(A) at page 9 of his order as under: “That the Appellant had in Assessment Yea…