How many judgments cite CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.?

120 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (237 ITR 13), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 144, Section 115JB, Section 14A.

CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.

237 ITR 13Supreme Court of India1999#873 most cited

What is CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

An audit objection that points out a factual error or omission overlooked by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment constitutes tangible material or information justifying the reopening of assessment under Section 147. This principle applies even for reopening beyond four years and is not considered a mere change of opinion.

120

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment · audit objection · factual error · tangible material · beyond four years · change of opinion · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 144 Section 115JB Section 14A Section 151 Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible material full and true disclosure beyond four years mere change of opinion kelvinator first proviso to section 147 change of opinion material facts necessary for assessment tangible material section 151(2)income escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.

Lexplosion Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7762/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…O (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 17. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO and others [236 ITR 34] 18. R. K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT Vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 8 20. ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. Yuvraj Vs. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 13. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the si…

The National Small Industries Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2728/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08 National Small Industries Corpn., Vs Acit, Circle 16(1), Nsic Bhavan, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi. Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact0686N

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 National Small Industries Corpn., Vs ACIT, Circle 16(1), NSIC Bhavan, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi. Phase-III, New Delhi. PAN: AAACT0686N Assessee by: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.4.2019 Date of Pronouncement .4.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 3.2.2015 in Appeal No.102/13-14 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IX, New Delhi (for short ‘Ld…

The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/S Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 136/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…e alleged advances from the customers. It was failure on the part of the assessee, in truly and completely disclosing all the material facts which led to initiation of proceedings u/s 148 as held in the following cases: a. CIT vs. PVS Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC): b. CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 197 (SC): c. ITO vs. Sarabhai M. Lakhani [2000] 243 ITR 01 (SC): d. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC): 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu was right in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash depos…

DCIT 14(20(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Home Finance Co.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7223/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-14(2)(1),432, 4Th Floor, M/S Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, West Wing South Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aaaci6285N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7223/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Ms. Anita Hardasani, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.R

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

…e A.O on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party is valid in the eyes of law. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC). Insofar the contention of the counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the concluded P a g e | 15 ITA No.7223/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 C.O No.81/Mum/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. assessment on the basis of a „change of opinion‟ was not permissible was concerned, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that no query was raised by…

Shishya Edutech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7726/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. Commissioner of Income vs. Khosla International, Tax, Circle-2, Amritsar Vill-Shahapur, G.T. Road, Batala [PAN: AAEFK 5987E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax…

Billo, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. Pan: Bakpb9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Billo, Vs. ITO, C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-1(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Meerut. Rohini. PAN: BAKPB9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue by : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2018 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2018 of the CIT(A), Meerut, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961]…

ITO, Khurda vs. Bularam Dalai, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda/Bhimsen Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80C

…ssion pointed out by the Audit Party constitute a new and tangible material for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 2 LTD. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in cancelling the reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 2009-10 which was initiated by the A.O on the basis of Revenue Audit Party's objection. 4. Any other grounds, if any, shall be pressed at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a labour contractor and filed the…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The Dy. CIT, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, L/H. C.D.V. Subba Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…Therefore, argued that the AO has not committed any error in reopening the assessment. The Ld.DR further argued that the assessment is reopened on the basis of audit objection and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.S.Beedies Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 13 SC, the audit party is entitled to point out factual error or omission in the assessment and reopening of assessment on the basis of factual error pointed out by audit party is permissible under law. The Ld.DR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court 6 Sri C.D.S.Subba Rao, L/R of Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, Vijayawada in the case of…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…ench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies fP) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 JTR 13 (SC) has held as under (at p. 393): 'in the case of C!T vs. p.V.S Beedies (P) Ltd. (199$) 155 CTR (SC) 538; (1999) 237 ITR 13 {SC) the apex Court held that the audit patty can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the ITO in the assessment Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and reopening of a case on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out by th…

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

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

…ng the detailed submission made during the hearing by Ld AR. Appellant has sought to challenge the reopening on very specious grounds. The issue has now been clearly settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT versus PVS Beedis Private limited in 237 ITR 13 (1999), Jt 1998 (9) SC 118, 1998 9 SCC 27. Besides, there are plethora of rulings in this regard and the AO is supposed to process the information and examine the assessee record per proper scrutiny process. It is also pertinent to refer to the ruling of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi where in ITA No.4738/Del./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) ITO, Ward 5 (2),…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 2.9. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to poi…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hemadri Cements Limited., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 516/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri B.S. PurushothamFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnupriya, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…-09. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in quashing the re-opened assessment on the basis that the re-opening was done based on the audit objection. The CIT (A) has failed to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income vs. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 13, held that the re-opening of the case on the basis of factual information given by the audit party is valid in law. 6. Any other ground that may be taken up at the time of hearing.” 2. It is not out of place to mention that the assessee filed Cross Objection, not only to support the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) but also on the issue which was n…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…e tax audit report. There can be omission and failure on the part of Hie assessee to disclose material facts fairly and truly during the course of the assessment proceedings. [Para 42] 4. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law. 5. CIT…

ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Ahmedabad Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1772/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.O., Ward-13(1) -Versus- M/S Calcutta Ahmedabad Kolkata Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (Pan:Aaccc 2260 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl Cit For The Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…he A.O. gets no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding u/s 14 7/148 in relation to Rs. 77,51,915/-.” 3. We have heard rival contentions. Case file perused. Learned Departmental Representative quotes hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs PVS Beedies [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) that the Revenue’s audit party is very much entitled to point out factual error or omission made in framing of a regular assessment. The revenue’s case is that the Assessing Officer had rightly taken recourse to the impugned reopening in view of the fact that assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. We find no s…

Ashok Baldevbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 of the

ITA 787/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 68

…such objection in view of the provision under section 292BB of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld. DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Vs ITO (362 ITR 502) and CIT Vs P.V.S Beedies Pvt. Ltd (237 ITR 13). 6. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also gone through the various case law relied by respective parties. In our view certain facts, dates are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that initially assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was completed on 24.12…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…f adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 4.10. A division of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) made the following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to poin…

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

…matter of adjudication under section 263 of the Act. 2.11. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to poi…