CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

348 ITR 485High Court2012#382 most cited

What is CIT v. Usha International Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

231

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Usha International Ltd · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · mere change of opinion · reassessment validity · query raised no addition · issue not examined · reason to believe · Kelvinator principle · fresh tangible material · escapement of income

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 200210 Taxmann 188254 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 144BSection 271(1)(c)Section 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormaterial facts necessary for assessmentmere change of opinionsanctioning authorityfull and true disclosurechange of opinionlive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6245/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…t. Nirmala Singh, etc. was provided by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. Under these circumstances, no new information coming in possession of the AO itself amounts to change in opinion as has been held in Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (FB). Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue under consideration was raised and was decided subsequently. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of "change of opinion". Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e any new material/information for initiating reassessment proceedings. Hence, the reopening was challenged in this case. Reliance was placed on the following decision:  ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Lid: 348 ITR 299 (SC).  Usha International vs CIT: 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)  Maruti Suzuki India Lad vs DCTT: 356 ITR 209 (Del)  Satnam Overseas Limited vs ACTT: 129 ITR 237 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  CIT vs Batra Bhatta Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del)  Deepak Kumar vs PCIT: 450 ITR 301 (Del)  Jal Hotels Co Ltd. vs ADIT 184 Taxman 1 (Del)  CIT vs Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (De…

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…unt to change of opinion which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The Ld AR relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 2. Jindal Photo Films Ltd., [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Usha International [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Borm.) 12. The ld. AR further argued that the Approval under Section 151 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind and is mechanical in law and relied on the judgement of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223(Del). 13. The ld. AR further submitte…

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…unt to change of opinion which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The Ld AR relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 2. Jindal Photo Films Ltd., [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Usha International [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Borm.) 12. The ld. AR further argued that the Approval under Section 151 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind and is mechanical in law and relied on the judgement of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223(Del). 13. The ld. AR further submitte…

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…unt to change of opinion which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The Ld AR relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 2. Jindal Photo Films Ltd., [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Usha International [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Borm.) 12. The ld. AR further argued that the Approval under Section 151 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind and is mechanical in law and relied on the judgement of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223(Del). 13. The ld. AR further submitte…

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

…could have exercised powers to make addition but did not choose to do anything on such count, thus, action of reopening was merely change of opinion and was to be set aside. The hon'ble high court of Delhi, in the case of Usha International Ltd, reported in 348 ITR 485 dealt with the question "Whether the bar or prohibition under the principle 'change of opinion' will apply even when the Assessing Officer has not asked any question or query with respect to an entry/note, but there is evidence and material to show that the Assessing Officer had raised queries and questions on other aspects?" The decision of the…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…ealership Ltd: [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) CIT v. Kelvinator of India: [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) [affirming CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. [2018] 302 CTR 74 (SC) CIT v. Usha International Limited: [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) 43. In the following cases it has been held that reassessment cannot be initiated unless some new/ additional fact/material/ information comes on record leading to the belief of escapement of income: BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. ADIT: [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Del.) CIT v. Feather Foam Enterprises (P)…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…ealership Ltd: [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) CIT v. Kelvinator of India: [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) [affirming CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. [2018] 302 CTR 74 (SC) CIT v. Usha International Limited: [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) 43. In the following cases it has been held that reassessment cannot be initiated unless some new/ additional fact/material/ information comes on record leading to the belief of escapement of income: BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. ADIT: [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Del.) CIT v. Feather Foam Enterprises (P)…

Sh. Rajesh Kakkar, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

…as again raised the issue regarding objection to reopening at the appeal stage which was already addressed by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.7 The full bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del.) had examined in detail as to what constitutes change of opinion. If a subject-matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined the claim/deduction or the entry, and, therefore, it is a case of “change of opinion”. When at the first instance, in the original assessmen…

Commr of Income Tax [TDS], Hyderabad vs. M/S Jayadarshini Housing Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad

ITTA/65/2014HC Telangana26 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10th Floor, DLF Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi PAN No. AABCT7775M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellants by Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Sumisha Murgai & Shri Kashish Gupta, Advocates Respondent by Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03/01/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR: JUDICIAL MEMBE…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur vs. Ms. Kshirsagar Fabrics, Solapur

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hat change of opinion don't give jurisdiction for the reopening of Assessment. 5.6 A recent authoritative opinion on the validity of reassessment proceedings is Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi)(FB) The Hon'ble High held as follows (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validity initiated where return of income is processed u/s. 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change of opinion as no opinion is formed (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records t…

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

…[2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom) d) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Dy.CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) e) Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT [2004] 267 ITR 161(Bom) No new Material f) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) g) CIT Vs Usha International Ltd.[2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB): 77 DTR 396 (Del)(FB) On merits Ground No.3: Issue related to claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(2) a) In the original assessment order enclosed in PB in Pages 1 & 2, the then Ld AO had accepted the Form No.10 which is filed along with the Return of Income and gave a finding that the Form 10 is in order. b) It is submitted that the…

Jain Machine Tools, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Delhi High Court in the case of full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Commissioner of of Income Income-tax-VI, VI, New New Delhi Delhi v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del) International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del) held that following held that following conditions are required for reopening in assessment made u/s conditions are required for reopening in assessment made u/s conditions are required for reopening in assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act. (i) 143(3) of the Act. (i) The Assessing Officer must fo…

Blue Coast Infrastructure Development P.Ltd, Solan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2984/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ase of Consolidated Photo and Finvest – 281 ITR 394. But this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been overturned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd 234 ITR 170. 11. The decision in the cases of Usha International 348 ITR 485 is also misplaced in as much as in that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was seized with a situation where new facts, material or information came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer which was not on record and available at the time of assessment order and, therefore, it was held that it is not a case of change of opinion. 12. In fact,…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

…T OF ORISSA In The Case Of Sri Jagannath Promoters & Builders Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 4. Thereafter, in rebuttal of ground 2, the AR submitted that the ruling of Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD (348 ITR 485) in the Para 11 of the order has mentioned that the observations and ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 151 Taxman 41(Delhi) does not reflect the correct legal position. The full bench of Delhi High Court has observed that the aforesaid judgment of M/s. Consolidated Photo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that the reopening of assessment was made in accordance with the law. 6.2. To substantiate its case, the Revenue has relied on the following decisions :s 1. Decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha International Limited - (2012) 348 ITR 485. 2. Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT, Madras – (1976) 102 ITR 622. 3. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT, Madras – (1991) SCR(1) 624. 4. DCIT Vs. M/s. Nikhil Refineries Pvt. Limited – (ITA No.2217/Hyd/2018 dt.29.08.2022) 7. Per contra, the ld.AR has submitted that the read…

Sindya Securities and Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp.Circle-6[2], Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 438/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sindya Securities & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.609, Lakshi Bavan, V Floor Corporate Circle 6(2) Sundaram Avenue, Mount Road Chennai Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalcs-3297-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan,(Ca) - Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 28

…cellation of call option agreement was duly considered by Ld. AO. 4.4 Regarding the argument that the order was passed without making relevant enquiries, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) which held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed with due application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,…