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 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 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 144B Section 271(1)(c)Section 234B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible material first proviso to section 147 kelvinator material facts necessary for assessment mere change of opinion sanctioning authority full and true disclosure change of opinion live link tangible material escapement of income reason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN : AAACJ 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Sate…

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT., (Intnl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/AHD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…viz. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in the case of CIT V Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (followed by dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 373 ITR 681, Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs Usha International Ltd 254 CTR 509, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Rajesh Chawla Vs CIT 154 Taxman 364 and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of R. Padmanabhan 371 ITR 211. 7 I.T.A. No.1437/Chny/17 8. The facts of the case laws quoted by the assessee are not relevant to the assessee's case. In the case of E. Krishnappa quoted by the assessee, the facts…

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

…ose of Section 147 of the Act. She placed reliance on the following judgments – Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs ACIT: 350 ITR 651 (Bom), Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax: 364 ITR 232 and CIT Vs Usha International Ltd: 348 ITR 485. 11. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening assessment cannot be supplemented. The submissions made by the Ld. Departmental Representative go beyond the reasons recorded and/or the order rejecting objections to re-opening assessment filed by the Assessee. In this regard the Ld. Counsel for…

ITO Ward 3(2), Trichy vs. Ramanathan Vasantha Priya, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41

…grounds: i. The order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case. ii. The learned CIT(A) had failed to consider the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the CIT Vs. M/s. Usha International Limited (2012) 348 ITR 485. iii. The learned CIT(A) had erred in not considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KalyanjiMavji& Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 102 ITR 287(SC)(1976) wherein it is held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to notice subsequently, even though they are already on recor…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding "without anything further" as that would amount to "giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong". In CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485/210 Taxman 188/25 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi) a Full Bench of this Court observed that there can be cases where an AO may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/original proceedings may have examined the subject matter because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. In Swarovski India (P.) Ltd.…

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…uiry. In such a case, the action u/s 148 could not have been taken. For the above proposition, he relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, reported in 381 ITR 428 and CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., 348 ITR 485. He also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s AST Pipes Pvt. Ltd., vide ITA NO.8312/Del/2019, order dated 27th October, 2020. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings has requested the AO, vide letter dated 20th December, 2017, copy o…

Kumar Engineering Works, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2919/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Kumar Engineering Works, Vs Acit, B-38, Gt Karnal Road, Circle-20(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfk6388K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 8. Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485, he submitted that reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original proceedings and, 5 thereafter the AO does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situation, it should be accepted that the issue was examined, but, the AO did not find any ground or reas…

Abhishek Agarwal, Nani Daman vs. ITO, Daman Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.97/Srt/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abhishek Agarwal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Radha Madhav Kunj, Opp. Gem Daman Ward, Daman. Plaza, College Road, Nani Daman. [Pan: Adxpa8893P अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A. राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2020 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On: 06.01.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as follows: “24. It would also be profitable to refer to the decision of Central Warehousing Corpn. (supra) and CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433/256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 200/210 Taxman 188/348 ITR 485 (Delhi) and several other decisions wherein it has been repeatedly held that reopening initiated without any failure on the part of the Assessee in fully and truly disclosing all material facts without any fresh tangible material deserves to be quashed. In view of the aforesaid test laid down by this Court for re-opening of the assessment in case…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…wer to review his order. Ranjihit Reddy vs. DCIT reported in 161 TTJ 316 it was held that reopening relying on information already on record is bad in law. Which is also supported by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 485 (Del) para 6. Therefore it is respectfully submitted that notice dt. 8/3/2013 suffers from infirmity of change of opinion. Further Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd in ITA 203 of 2017 held that without there being new tangible material available reopening is bad in law. Further in the case of CIT vs. Sahara India…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. South Delhi Promoters Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6402/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…sment. 16. In our considered opinion, this is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Usha International Ltd 348 ITR 485 has held that where there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessment, then provisions of Section 147 of the Act cannot be invoked even before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court read as under:…

La Cera Mall Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 337/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 337/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) La Cera Mall Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer Plot No.44/A, Govt. Ind. Ward-12(3)(3) Vs. Est., Opp. Ipca Room No.224, Aayakar Laboratories, M. G. Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- Charkop, Kandiwali (West), 400020. Mumbai-400067. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 461/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ La Cera Mall Pvt. Ltd. Ward-12(3)(3) Plot No.44/A, Govt. Ind. Vs. Room No.224, Aayakar Est., Opp. Ipca Bhavan, M. K. Road, Laboratories, M. G. Road, Mumbai-400020. Charkop, Kandiwali (West), Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl9996K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 461/M/2020 A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. A reason to believe is 7 461/M/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 what is relevant and not an established fact of escapement of income. Reliance is also placed on the judgement in the case of M/s Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High Court) 7, In view of the above, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 5,05,00,000/— chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y.2010-11. By reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the said assessment year, this is a fit case to re-o…

The Sri Kannikaparameswari Co Op Bank Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/65/2017HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…ion and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.” 11. The full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Usha International Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 485 , had considered the following substantial questions of law. "(i) What is meant by the term "change of opinion? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to i…

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2388/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2388-2389/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-2005 & 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., A.D.I.T(International Prahaladnagar Garden, Vs. Tax), 701 Parshwanath E Square, Ahmedabad. Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacj9592P

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 42

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2388-2389/AHD/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-2005 & 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., A.D.I.T(International Prahaladnagar Garden, Vs. Tax), 701 Parshwanath E Square, Ahmedabad. Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAACJ9592P And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2258/AHD/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-07 D.C.I.T(International Taxation…

M/S Subex Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA/378/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 154Section 200Section 260Section 263Section 35D

…of the prospectus. Thus - 29 - questions Nos. (1) and (2) have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” 16. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax- VI, New Delhi V/s. Usha International Ltd., [(2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (FB)], the Full Bench of Delhi High Court has held thus: “39. In view of the above observations we must add one caveat. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc…

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7167/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7167/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – 10(2)(2) 304, Atlanta Arcade Room No. 264, 2nd Floor Marol Church Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri East, Mumbai -4000059 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACM4100C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashok Bansal Department by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of Hearing : 16.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appe…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is return in which the aforesaid sum of Rs. 70,00,000 was not disclosed. The case of the assessee, as such, came squarely within the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act." 4.3 In another case viz., CIT (Delhi) vs Usha International Ltd [2012] 254 CTR 509,High Court of Delhi held with regard to levy of penalty uts.271(1)(c) as below: "The further contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the revised return withdrawing the claim for deduction under section 35 CCA was filed on 05.12.1983 voluntarily and without any prompting or provocation from the income tax department is not accepta…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/542/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.542 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(3), PRESENT ADDRESS CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NO.21, E-1, 2ND STAGE PEEN…

Gurdish Kaur Khular, Jalandhar vs. ACIT( International Taxation), Circle, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69

…48, all that the AO has to do is to have sufficient reasons to entertain the belief to arrive at the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. This was the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, and in the later decisions of Delhi High Court namely AGR Investment Ltd. (197 Taxman 177), India Terminal Connector System Ltd. (21 taxmann.com 69), Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (350 ITR 407), Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Hospital Ltd. (44 taxmann.com 230), High Court of Gujarat in t…