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 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 144Section 115JBSection 14ASection 151Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible materialfull and true disclosurebeyond four yearsmere change of opinionkelvinatorfirst proviso to section 147change of opinionmaterial facts necessary for assessmenttangible materialsection 151(2)income escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.

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

…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…

Mohd. Zammer Cutterwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 3314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54G

…raised the ground about the audit objections before the AO or the FAA, that any fact brought out by the audit party was a valid ground for reopening the assessment. She relied upon the case of Somdutt Builders Private Ltd.(98 ITD 78), PVS Beedies Private Ltd.(237 ITR 13) and Rajesh Jhaveri Stockbrokers Private Ltd.(161 taxman 316), that AO had deliberated over the issue once it was pointed out by the revenue audit, that the fact that tax was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act from the file of some other assessee, that the information was not available before the AO at the time of original assessment,that it was a…

The Salem District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1168/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1168/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: 10.04.2017
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…year relevant to the AY. This aspect of making the NPA provision during the previous year was :- 4 -: not examined by the AO which was brought to the notice of the AO by the audit. The issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of the 237 ITR 13, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that on the basis of the factual error pointed by the Audit Party it is permissible to reopen the assessment under the law. Accordingly, the Ld.DR argued that there was no error in the issue of notice u/s.148 and the same should be upheld. 5.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material place…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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]…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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]…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…ed from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible in law. In this regard we rely in the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, 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. M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 13 of 34 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…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Vatsala Santhosh Kamat, Chennai

ITA 174/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Murali Mohan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

…ng Officer had failed to apply Section 56(2)(v) of the Act, and also failed to verify the investments made by the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies Pvt Ltd, 237 ITR 13. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. I have considered the submissions of the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the orders of the authorities below. Original assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of such original assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer had deputed Inspecto…

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd ( Now Known As Kimplas Piping Systems Ltd), Nashik vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Asst

ITA 962/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia (Jm) & Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 292

…(A) has dismissed the objection of the assessee by simply invoking the section 292 BB of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) rejected contention of the assessee by simply relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. 237 ITR 13(SC). The Ld. AR has drawn our attention on page 68 of the paper book and submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 29/03/2010 which is on page 68 of paper book which was received by the chartered accountant of the assessee. The notice u/s 142(1) which is on page 69 of the paper book which was issued on 27/09/2010. In reply to show-cause noti…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…ng of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Del)138: (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies (P) ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 ITR 13 (Se) has held as under (at p.393): "In the case of CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538: (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) the apex Court held that the audit party 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…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…ng of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Del)138: (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of the Court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies (P) ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538 : (1999) 237 ITR 13 (Se) has held as under (at p.393): "In the case of CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 538: (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) the apex Court held that the audit party 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…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…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]…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…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]…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Canon India Private Ltd., Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4040/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4040/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Tower A & B, Cyber Income Tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Green, Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon , Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4175D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 10.06.2010 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s been reopened on the basis of audit objection and the jurisdictional High Court has upheld the reopening based on audit objection in the case of Bawa Abhi Singh Vs. DCIT 253 ITR 83. (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. P.V.S. Beadies Pvt.Ltd. 237 ITR 13 held that reopening on factual information provided by the internal auditor is valid. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs.53,15,240/- on account of unused capital subsidy ignoring that as per records the assessee had not offered this amount as income in A.Y.2003-04. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd ( Formelry Zee Telefilms Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7005/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Kishnadwala & Jay Bhansali –ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)

…raised the ground about the audit objections before the AO or the FAA, that any fact brought out by the audit party was a valid ground for reopening the assessment. She relied upon the case of Somdutt Builders Private Ltd.(98 ITD 78), PVS Beedies Private Ltd.(237 ITR 13) and Rajesh Jhaveri Stockbrokers Private Ltd.(161 taxman 316), that AO had deliberated over the issue once it was pointed out by the revenue audit, that the fact that tax was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act from the file of some other assessee, that the information was not available before the AO at the time of original assessment,that it was a…

ITO, Ward-56(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of change of opinion as alleged by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Reliance was also placed by the ld. D.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 237 ITR 13, wherein the reopening on the basis of factual mistake pointed out by the audit party was held to be valid. 6. In the rejoinder, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no reference to any audit objection made by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening and the ld. D.R., therefore, cannot I.T.A. No. 1258/KOL.…

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

…f law cannot be regarded as an information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act. 23. Replying to the above, the ld. DR also placed reliance on plethora of decisions including decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 13 [SC] & decision in the case of Ess Kay Engg. Com. (P) Ltd 247 ITR818 [sc] and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd 241 ITR 248 21 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 [Madras] and vehemently contended that after considering the ratio of [supra], it was held that the audit report has to be construed as if relevant…

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

…f law cannot be regarded as an information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act. 23. Replying to the above, the ld. DR also placed reliance on plethora of decisions including decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 13 [SC] & decision in the case of Ess Kay Engg. Com. (P) Ltd 247 ITR818 [sc] and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd 241 ITR 248 21 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 [Madras] and vehemently contended that after considering the ratio of [supra], it was held that the audit report has to be construed as if relevant…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…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) 21 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 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 [1…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…information could be received from the Revenue audit party where merely information as to the escapement of income is provided by the audit party and he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. PVS Beedies Private Limited (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) He submitted that the income has escaped assessment and the Revenue has rightly reopened the assessment based upon the information received by the AO from the Revenue audit team which is in itself a tangible material. The ld. DR further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v.…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…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]…