CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd.

105 ITR 212Supreme Court of India1976#1335 most cited
85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. · section 147 · section 148 · section 153A · section 158BB · section 139(1) · income escaping assessment · search assessment · reassessment · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 250Section 44ABSection 44AD

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 11bsection 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)section 2(45)section 158bb(1)section 153(a)section 153a(1)(a)section 139(5)section 10bsection 158bbsection 80ac

Judgments citing CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. ITO, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 283/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…e Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) , ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 268 ITR 203, CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd., 258 ITR 126 (Gau), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 114 ITR 404 (AP), CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd., 105 ITR 212 (SC) and several other legal pronouncements. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the present case is not of change of opinion and was not based only on audit report and there was independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. For this purpose he relied upon various decisions as mentioned in the paper book, more parti…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

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

ITA 306/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…he order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has applied flat rate of N.P based on past history and profit disclosed in comparable case operating in similar area. We are reminded here thatthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 8. of CIT vs. Siamon Carves Ltd. 105 ITR 212 (S.C.) guiding the administration of justice has observed that “The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial. In doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax legitimately due form an appellant should remain un-recovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

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

ITA 296/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…he order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has applied flat rate of N.P based on past history and profit disclosed in comparable case operating in similar area. We are reminded here thatthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 8. of CIT vs. Siamon Carves Ltd. 105 ITR 212 (S.C.) guiding the administration of justice has observed that “The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial. In doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax legitimately due form an appellant should remain un-recovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner…

DCIT, Najibabad vs. Dr. Sirish Kumar, Bijnor

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4578/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In Ita No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ca

Section 68Section 69CSection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. PAN :APJPK1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In ITA No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. DCIT, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad PAN :APJPK1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR Assessee by Sh. Paramjeet Singh, CA Date of hear…

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

…on the same facts are on question of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustain action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 40 Ms. Seema Dilip vora 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (S…

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

…re 26 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in (2010) 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made…

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

…on the same facts are on question of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible as was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to As…

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

…the same facts are on question of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to…

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

…the same facts are on question of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/BIL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 130/BIL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/BIL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…capriciously because he must exercise his discretion and judgment in the matter judiciously to ensure that the scales of justice were not weighed against the appellant. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that the taxing authorities exercise quasi- judicial powers and in doing so, they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an appellant would remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might ind…

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

…on of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding M/s Crescent Construction Co. that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to A…

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

…on of law or mere discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding M/s Crescent Construction Co. that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to A…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775. The taxing authority should not act in a manner as might 33 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur indicate that scales are weighted against the assessee CIT Vs Simon Carves Ltd (1976) 105 ITR 212,218 (SC). But in our case, the ld AO has brushed aside all the principles of law and made the perverse findings as stated above. F) We further submit that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is @100% of expenses/purchases, so by using this method the ld AO assessed the gross sales as net income of the assessee as he disallowed the unaccounted purchases…

Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Principal CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Merit Of The Matter Which Has Been Put Up For Our Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sayyat Nasir Ali (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…that the ld. Pr. CIT has not considered the assessee’s submissions and not heard the assessee at all and the order has been passed in undue haste. The ld. AR referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) wherein it was held that: "The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not in a partisan manner. Although it is part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an assessee should remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might indi…

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

…Mum/2016 M/s Intelnet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. discovery of mistake of law is not sufficient information and that in order to sustained action u/s 34 by further holding that reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to A…