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.

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

…n 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 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to A…

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

…n 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 43 Jayant Manilal Gandhy (2010) 322 ITR 390 (Karn.) SLP dismissed in 2010 322 ITR (St.) 14 (SC). Reference also made to Asian Paints ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.), Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 447 (SC). The observations of the Supreme Court are a protection against the abuse of power; they also protect…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Samay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 85/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 Dcit, Circle-11, P-7, V/S. M/S Samay Construction Chowringhee Square, Pvt. Ltd., C/O Model Kolkata-700 069 Nursury, 5/1, Tiljola Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700 046 [Pan No.Aahcs 8487 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…The decision of the Hon'ble High Court was the subject-matter for special leave, which was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBDT v. Kamala Bai Srikrishna Soni (2010) 322 ITR (St) 16. Further, in the case of CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is part of their duty to ensure that no tax, which is legitimately due from the assessee should remain unrecovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as…

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

…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 A…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Goodview Trading P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 4644/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…o the view that unless those authorities exercise the power in a manner most beneficial to the revenue and consequently most adverse to tile assessee. they should be deemed to have exercised it in a proper and judicious manner {CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. 1]9761 105 ITR 212 (SC)}. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) finding that this is not the case where addition should have been made u/s. 153C, but u/s. 147/ 143(3) after making proper enquiries. In the present facts of the case, the addition is not legally sustainable and therefore, was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any inte…