How many judgments cite CIT v. Trend Electronics?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Trend Electronics come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 68.

CIT v. Trend Electronics

379 ITR 456High Court2015#2226 most cited

What is CIT v. Trend Electronics authority for?

The non-furnishing of recorded reasons for reopening an assessment under Section 147, even if partially, is a jurisdictional requirement. Failure to provide these reasons to the assessee upon request renders the reassessment proceedings and order bad in law, leading to their quashing.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Trend Electronics · Section 147 · Section 148 · non-furnishing of reasons · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · jurisdictional defect · income escaping assessment · quashing reassessment · reasons to believe

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 308

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 143(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 292bb section 151(2)section 292b reopening of assessment section 292 section 29 notice under section 148 income escaping assessment reason to believe escapement of income non-application of mind reassessment proceedings

Judgments citing CIT v. Trend Electronics

Dipesh Jayantilal Gudhka Prop. of M/S Rishi Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 187/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 151

…and not 25% of bogus purchases as has been held to be taxable by learned CIT(A) in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon is binding precedent in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) & CIT vs. Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456), in support of the proposition that reasons for reopening not having been furnished to the assessee would vitiate the reassessment proceedings. 6. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 7. I find that the arguments of the learned counsel…

ITO Ward-1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Dipesh Jayantilal Gudhka, Mumbai

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2014/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 151

ACIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rishabh Metals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2665/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2009 - 10

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234ASection 69C

…mistake on the part of the AO and renders the re-assessment order invalid and null. In defence of the arguments, the learned AR relied on the following decisions: 1.GKN Driveshraft (India) Ltd. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 2. CIT vs. Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom) 3.CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 227 (Bom) The learned AR therefore prayed that the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act may kindly be quashed. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of authorities below and submitted that it has been recorded in the assessment order that reasons have…

Rishabh Metal & Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1535/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2009 - 10

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234ASection 69C

Chetna Sanjay Patil, Palghar vs. ITO, Ward, 1 Palghar, Palghar

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6103/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Chetna Sanjay Patil, Ito-Ward 1, C-1, Indraprasth Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Income Tax Bhim Nagar, Trapur Road, Office, Bidco Road, Tal. & Dist. Boisar (W), Vs. Palghar – 401404 Dist. Palghar - 401501 Pan: Ahgpp8098N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Chetna Sanjay Patil, ITO-Ward 1, C-1, Indraprasth Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Income Tax Bhim Nagar, Trapur Road, Office, Bidco Road, Tal. & Dist. Boisar (W), Vs. Palghar – 401404 Dist. Palghar - 401501 PAN: AHGPP8098N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Smita Verma (DR) Date of Hearing: 28/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM This is an appeal by the asse…

Shri Chand Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

…raised by the assessee to the reopening of assessment in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. (supra). We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom), after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the AO. It has further held that the r…

Shri Chand Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3860/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1783/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Karan Khurana, The Income Tax Officer, 113, Dilkhush Building, Ward-48(2), Room [vs. Tilak Bazar, Delhi – 006. No.115, Drum Shape PAN AGDPK4271C Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed again…

Vilas B. Rukari (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 2197/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ions to the re-assessment were not disposed off by the AO. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra).” 13. We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the AO. It has further held that the rec…

M/S. Gujarat Glass P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7188/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh A TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

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

…esorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the apex court, vide order dated July 16, 2007.” 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee further, relied on the decision of another Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456, “8. We find that the impugned order merely applies the decision of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Further it also 7 | P a g e ITAs No.7188 & 7666/Mum/2004 follows the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of the Act is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. a. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)] b. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (BOM)] C.O. No. 280/MUM/2018 M/s. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd., c. CIT v. Trend Electronics [379 ITR 456 (Bom.)] d. CIT v. IDBI Ltd. [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 227 (Bom.)] 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submits that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not dispute the fact that the Assessing Officer never provided to the assessee the reasons for reopening the assessment. However, he dismissed the contentions of the asses…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

Abhijit Deshpande, Pandit Automotive Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ns to the re-assessment were not disposed off by the AO. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 13. We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the 7 same before the AO. It has further held that th…

M/S.Gangabisan Murlidhar Maniyar, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)

…rein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that recorded reasons must be furnished to the assessee when the assessee sought for the reasons. 5 5. We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the AO. It has further held that the…

S.T. Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 831/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री अननऱ चतुर्वेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य, एर्वं श्री वर्वकास अर्वस्थी, न्यानयक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.831/PUN/2016 ननधाारण र्वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 S.T. Electricals Pvt. Ltd., J-56, S Block, MIDC, Bhosari, Pune-411026 PAN : AAGCS6214D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 10, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…dered as null and void. It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for reopening of the assessment. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics reported in 379 ITR 456. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 16 the case of PCIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors reported in 398 ITR 13, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee was not given copy of reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer, whole assessment proceedings an…

Nilachal Build-Tech & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 324/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwalla, aRFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR

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

…ing of the assessment to the assessee and passed the impugned order u/s.147 of the Act on 31.3.2015, the said order is not a valid order and liable to be quashed in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics, 379 ITR 456 (Bom), where, it was held that the power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the pre-requisite conditions viz; reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has es…

Mahesh S. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as above

ITA 3557/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannushri Mahesh S. Jain, 401, Osia Friendship, J.P.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 058 Pan: Aaapt 4862F ...... Appellant Vs. The I.T.O, Ward – 24(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Ms. M. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has raised a preliminary ground, which is based on the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics, 379 ITR 456 (Bom). It is sought to be pointed out that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 148 of the Act were not furnished to the assessee and that such failure to furnish the reasons recorded renders the reassessment as invalid. In this context, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that vide communica…

Meghna Harish Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 23(3), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5264/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…ver, the ld. DR, defended the addition. Reliance was also placed upon the aforesaid decision by contending that non-supply Officer. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, relied upon the decision in CIT vs Trend Electronics, order dated 16/09/2015 (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom.) by contending that the decision in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. was duly considered along with the decision in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation, we find that while framing the assessment, the assessee reques…

M/S. the Malabar Hill Club Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7359/MUM/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7359/Mum/2007 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000) बनधम/ The Malabar Hill Club Ltd., Dcit-10(3), Mumbai Il Palazzo, B G Kher Marg, Vs. Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacw3868M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri J D Mistri प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Suman Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.1.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…nsequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has lapsed.” The ld. Counsel of the assessee also drew our attention to another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456) (Bom) vide para 8 and 9 observed and held as under : “8. We find that the impugned order merely applies the decision of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Further it also follows the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the…