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)

Business India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12 (1), Mumbai

Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 3803/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 To 3806/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, DR

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

…BOTH. The A.O. had, in consequence of this new information, reason to believe that income to the extent of deemed dividend escaped assessment. Appellant has not been able to establish "change of opinion" in terms of law laid down in Usha Inttl. (FB) judgment 348 ITR 485 (Del.) 6 I.T.A. No. 3803 to 3806/Mum/2018 Business India (FB). The new material is for us to see in form of information from another officer. Moreover no challenge was mounted before A.O. The ground is rejected. 6. Further, Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an…

M/S Berhampur Development Authority vs. ITO, Berhampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/CTK/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

…of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) 23. Replying to above, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2010 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer…

Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samittee, Haryana vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A No.871/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Vs. Income Tax Officer Samittee, (Exemption), Rohtak. C/S. S. D. Public School, Narwana, Distt. Jind, Haryana- 126116. [Pan: Aaets 6172 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-disclosure truly and fully all material facts, necessary for assessment, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The ld.Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd.[2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) wherein by majority view, it was held that “the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened u/s.147 of the Act, even within 4 years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment, if the original assessment was made u/s.143…

DCIT-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jhawar Trade and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6684/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am The Dcit-4(2)(2), Vs. M/S. Jhawar Trade & Room No.640, 6Th Floor Investment Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 285, Princess Street, C.J.House, 2Nd Floor M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8175E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.161/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6684/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Jhawar Trade & Vs. The Dcit-4(2)(2), Room No.640, 6Th Floor Investment Pvt. Ltd., 285, Princess Street, Aayakar Bhavan C.J.House, 2Nd Floor M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8175E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Akhtar Ansari Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Date Of Hearing 18/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2019

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

…on to believe is what is relevant and not an established fact of escapement of income. A reason to believe is what is relevant and not an established fact of escapement of income. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of M/s. Usha International, 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High Court). 5. Thus, the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for A. Y.2010-11. In view of the above facts and the judicial decisions, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.3,70,63,750/- pertaining to A. Y.2010-11 being share premium has escaped assessment in terms of provisi…

Pramod Paliwal, Khanwa vs. ACIT Khanwa, Khanwa

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

ITA 271/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

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

…) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar.) vii) CITvs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 105 (Bom.) viii) Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308ITR 190 (Born.) ix) CITvs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del.) x) PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 94 CCH 147 (Chen HC) xi) Patel Plastics Corporation vs. ACIT-Central-24, Mumbai 2014 (7) TMI 953 (ITAT Mum.) xii) M/s. Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACfT, Chennai 2019 (6) TMI356 (Mad.HC) xiii) CIT vs. M/s. t.c.c. Infotech Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI853 (CaI.HC) xiv) M/s. Capri Global Advisory Se…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Nagpur Bye Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Oriental Nagpur Bye Central Circle-26, Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 21/48, Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan :Aabco2017M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Oriental Nagpur Bye Central Circle-26, Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 21/48, Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi PAN :AABCO2017M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri K.V.S. Krishna, CA Date of hearing 25.09.2019 Date of pronouncement 14.10.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 2017…

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidam Circle, Gandhidham vs. The Gandhidham Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Adipur-Kutch

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/RJT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 12/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Acit Vs. The Gandhidham Gandhidham Circle, Co-Operative Bank Gandhidham-Kutch Ltd. Tbz-1&2, Adipur, Kutch

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Chauhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 30

…,816/-. Since the query was raised by the A.O. in the course of original assessment proceedings, I am of the view that the opinion has been formed by the A.O. My view is fortified by the Delhi High Court Full Bench judgment in case of Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) wherein the Full Bench held in the context of concept of change of opinion that reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the, assessee in original assessment proceedings and assessing officer does not make any addition in assessment order. The appellant has also relied upon several judgments of…

ACIT 7(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Niyanand Inrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 2255/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6 Th Nityanand Infrastructure Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., Opp Abhudaya Nagar Vs. Rd, Mumbai Post Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacn1981E Co No. 266/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 2255/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10) Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd., Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Abhudaya Nagar Post Vs. Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, M.K. Rd, Mumbai Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv Sh. Rahul K. Hakani, ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01-07-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19-07-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ACIT, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6 th Nityanand Infrastructure Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., Opp Abhudaya Nagar Vs. Rd, Mumbai Post Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACN1981E CO No. 266/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 2255/Mum/2017 for AY 2009-10) Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd., ACIT, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Op…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2234/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2232/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2231/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1801/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1801, 1802 & 1803/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Union Bank of India v. DCIT (LTU) – 2 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan Cuffe Parade 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Mumbai - 400 005 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACU 0564 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 1991-92, 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2009-10) DCIT (LTU) – 2 v. M/s. Union Bank of India 2…

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…by the Revenue that the decision in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. was erroneously decided and requires reconsideration. During the course of arguments it was submitted that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, the question should be re- examined by the Court. 20. In the first place, it requires to be noted that the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. was delivered after the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. (supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dict…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…by the Revenue that the decision in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. was erroneously decided and requires reconsideration. During the course of arguments it was submitted that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, the question should be re-examined by the Court. 20. In the first place, it requires to be noted that the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. was delivered after the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. (supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dictum…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…by the Revenue that the decision in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. was erroneously decided and requires reconsideration. During the course of arguments it was submitted that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, the question should be re-examined by the Court. 20. In the first place, it requires to be noted that the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. was delivered after the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. (supra). Secondly, the subsequent decision in Madhukar Khosla noted the decision in Usha International Ltd. and reiterated the dictum…

Bell Granito Ceramics Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2203/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT/DR

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

…our appellant's submits that the Hon. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts submitted during the course of hearing and also not considering various decisions more particularly the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (FB) wherein, the Hon. Delhi High Court clearly held that if an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings the reassessment will be invalid. Further it is submitted the Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the issue had been raised in the original assessment proceedings and had been answered by th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly partly allowed

ITA 3201/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…at those five parties are hawala givers, therefore, the action taken u/s 147 is a mere change of opinion. For the above proposition the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 485. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he noted that third party information cannot be accepted as an evidence without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. He noted that the assessee has purchased certain items which was used for manufacturing the Central Air Conditioning plant in the hotel. If the allegations of th…

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.

Business India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12 (1), Mumbai

M/S Berhampur Development Authority vs. ITO, Berhampur

Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samittee, Haryana vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

DCIT-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jhawar Trade and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai

Pramod Paliwal, Khanwa vs. ACIT Khanwa, Khanwa

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Nagpur Bye Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidam Circle, Gandhidham vs. The Gandhidham Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Adipur-Kutch

ACIT 7(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Niyanand Inrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

Bell Granito Ceramics Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi