CIT v. Rinku Chakraborty

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

…to a reopening under section 147, if the preconditions for reopening under section 147 of the Act is satisfied. The learned AR contended that this proposition was also upheld by the Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rinku Chakraborty 242 CTR 425, which decision was reversed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Dell India Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in 432 ITR 212. In any case this proposition is not the subject matter for consideration in the present case of this appellant. (vi). Shailesh S Patel Vs. ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 570 (Ahmedabad – Trib) The learned Standing Council for the Re…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

…to a reopening under section 147, if the preconditions for reopening under section 147 of the Act is satisfied. The learned AR contended that this proposition was also upheld by the Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rinku Chakraborty 242 CTR 425, which decision was reversed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Dell India Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in Page 24 of 77 432 ITR 212. In any case this proposition is not the subject matter for consideration in the present case of this appellant. (vi). Shailesh S Patel Vs. ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 570 (Ahmedabad – Trib) The learned Standing Co…

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

…to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. However, before us, the ld. DR strongly relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rinku Chakraborty [242 CTR 425 (Kar) where it is held as follows:- “20. From the aforesaid judgments it is clear that, though the word 'opinion' is deleted and is now substituted by the words 'reason to believe', the concept of change of opinion is not obliterated w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 after substitution of s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1…

M/S TATA SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Ms. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems The Deputy Limited, Commissioner Of Unit 1, 78 Electronic City, Phase Vs. Income Tax, 1, Hosur Road, Circle – 7 (1) (1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent

…e and has not raised before the AO any objection regarding the validity of reopening. In para 5.6.1 of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has noted about the Page 4 of 8 judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy as reported in 242 CTR 425, in which it is held that whether income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the ITO, the ITO has the jurisdiction to reopen the original assessment and it is not necessary that for such reopening of such assessment, the information is to be derived from exter…

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

…n report is certainly a specialized information which can constitute basis for reopening when investment valued by approved valuer is over and above cost declared by assessee; hence, same constitutes basis for reopening. viii) CIT Vs Rinku Chakraborthy (2011) 242 CTR 425 (Kar) From the aforesaid judgments it is clear that, though the word 'opinion' is deleted and is now substituted by the words 'reason to believe', the concept of change of opinion is not obliterated w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 after substitution of s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Page 14 of 19 Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. However, where i…