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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Usha International Ltd.?

231 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Usha International Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 144B.

CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485)

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…this Court in Jindal Photo and Bawa Abhai Singh, their conclusion may have been totally different, notwithstanding alternative view of the Gujarat High Court. 17. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [Full Bench] in the case of Usha International Ltd 348 ITR 485 has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Limited (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: “In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with…

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.169/CTK/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs ITO Ward-BBN-W-4(1) Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack PAN No. :AFUPM 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आ…

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

…pers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 9) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 222 ITR 27, 29, 30 (Gujarat) 10) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) 11) Deepak Kapoor vs. Principal C.I.T. and Others, 450 ITR 301 (Del) 12) Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT 450 ITR 282 (Bom) d) That the C.I.T.(A) has erred in placing much reliance only on order passed by the Assessing officer disposing of objections filed by the appellant company. e) That the reopening of assessment u/s.…

Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7726/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

…of the issues with regard to taxability of the amount transferred to TIUF.” 21 ITA. 6971/Del/2018 AND ITA. 7726/Del/2019 Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi. 21. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-VI, New Delhi Vs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High Court) “Now we examine the claim of the assessee regarding this contention that reopening is on mere change of opinion. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Usha International Ltd. (supra). Para 13 to 17 of this judgment are relevant for the dispute in present case and the same ar…

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6971/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

…of the issues with regard to taxability of the amount transferred to TIUF.” 21 ITA. 6971/Del/2018 AND ITA. 7726/Del/2019 Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi. 21. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-VI, New Delhi Vs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High Court) “Now we examine the claim of the assessee regarding this contention that reopening is on mere change of opinion. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Usha International Ltd. (supra). Para 13 to 17 of this judgment are relevant for the dispute in present case and the same ar…

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

…requirement for the law relating to reopening under Section 147 of the Act does not permit re-opening on 'change of opinion'. 15. Full Bench of this Court in majority judgment authored by one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) in CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485/210 Taxman 188/25 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi)(FB) had drawn distinction between cases where re- opening is done within four years of the end of the assessment year and cases where re-opening is post four years of the end of the assessment year. This distinction was drawn, as earlier Full Bench of this High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [20…

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Rps Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O No. 70/Del/2021 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…idered the case only from the stand point of jurisdiction and not on the merits of the issues with regard to taxability of the amount transferred to TIUF.” 19. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-VI, New Delhi Vs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High Court) 18 ITA. 6300/Del/2018 AND C. O. No. 70/Del/2021 M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., ND “Now we examine the claim of the assessee regarding this contention that reopening is on mere change of opinion. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Usha International Ltd. (supra). Para 13…

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…nd deserves to be quashed. In this I.T.A. No.2752/Del/2018 4 regard, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 2. CIT Vs.Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (Del) [FBI 3.CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd.: 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. CIT Vs. Prima paper and Engineering Industry, 364 ITR 222 (Bom) 5. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.Vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj.) 6. ACIT Vs. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.: 25 Taxmann.com 301 7. ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., 348 ITR 299 (SC) 8. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 9. Rose Serviced Ap…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…has not verified the issue which he ought to have been verified in light of explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Limited [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi), where it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer can examine the claim or subject matter even without raising a written query. There can be cases, where an aspect and question is too apparent or obvious to hold that the Assessing Officer did not examine a particular subject matter, claim etc. The stand and stance of the assessee…

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

…gements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NDTV vs. DCIT, 424 ITR 607, judgements of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, 381 ITR 428 (Del) (para 16) and CIT vs. Usha International ltd., 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) and the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s AST Pipes Pvt. Ltd., order dated 27.10.2020 in ITA No.8312/Del/2019, submitted that in such a situation, when the AO has not complied with the mandatory provisions of proviso to section 147, the initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be quashed. 11. Replying…

DCIT Khandwa, Khandwa vs. M/S Rajrajeshwar Cotton Corporation, Sendhwa

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

ITA 573/IND/2019[2011`-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…n opinion was also formed by consciously not making an addition on this issue despite asking specific query in this regard. Thus, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (FB) 2012 is clearly applicable where it clearly stated vide clause 2 of para 13:- (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised I and is decided in favour of the assessee. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of "change of opinion". 14. In…

ITO, Ward- 21(4), New Delhi vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H Co No.66/Del/2018 (Ita No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2017 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection. Co No.66/Del/2018 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Decision Of The Ld. Cit (A) In The Case Of Surender Kumar Jain (S. K. Jain) Wherein, It Is Held That Jain Brothers Are Equally Involved In The Accommodation Entry Business & Maintain The Documents & Record. " 2. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 2,40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Ratio Decidendi In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014), 2 Itr-Ol-68 & Pcit-7 Vs. Bikram Singh In It A No. 55/2017 Dated 25/08/2017 On Identical Issue Of Addition As Unexplained Share Capital U/S 68 Of The It Act. 3 The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add & Alter Any Fresh Grounds(S) Of Appealand/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Ground(S) Of Appeal."

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. PAN: AACCR7910H CO No.66/Del/2018 (ITA No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN: AACCR7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.0…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

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

…terial to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income for assessment, reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485 where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., held that in absence of fresh material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmission Ltd., (supra) held ITA Nos.3201-…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

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

…terial to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income for assessment, reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485 where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., held that in absence of fresh material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmission Ltd., (supra) held ITA Nos.3201-…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

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

…terial to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income for assessment, reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485 where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., held that in absence of fresh material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmission Ltd., (supra) held ITA Nos.3201-…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

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

…terial to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income for assessment, reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485 where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., held that in absence of fresh material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmission Ltd., (supra) held ITA Nos.3201-…

The Commissioner of vs. M/S Abb India Ltd

ITA/785/2017HC Karnataka09 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 260

…I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA I.T.A NO.71 OF 2017 C/W I.T.A NO.785 OF 2017 IN ITA No.71 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ABB INDIA LTD 21ST FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE BRIGADE GATEWAY NO.26/01, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESWARAM WEST BANGAL…

Abb India Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of

ITA/71/2017HC Karnataka09 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 260

…I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA I.T.A NO.71 OF 2017 C/W I.T.A NO.785 OF 2017 IN ITA No.71 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ABB INDIA LTD 21ST FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE BRIGADE GATEWAY NO.26/01, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESWARAM WEST BANGAL…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar The Deputy Singhi, Commissioner of 101, Pride Elite No. 10, Income Tax, Museum Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AEFPS2551F APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P. Assessee by Girija, Advocates : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 01-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Presen…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar The Deputy Singhi, Commissioner of 101, Pride Elite No. 10, Income Tax, Museum Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AEFPS2551F APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P. Assessee by Girija, Advocates : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 01-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Presen…

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Rps Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

DCIT Khandwa, Khandwa vs. M/S Rajrajeshwar Cotton Corporation, Sendhwa

ITO, Ward- 21(4), New Delhi vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The Commissioner of vs. M/S Abb India Ltd

Abb India Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore