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 366,314 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.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…d allowed assessee's claim for deduction after a detailed scrutiny, initiation of reassessment proceedings merely on basis of change of opinion was not justified. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions: • Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB) • Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd vs ITO: 314 ITR 263 (Guj) - SLP dismissed by SC • Satnam Overseas Ltd & Anr vs ACIT: 329 ITR 237 (Del) • Jal Hotels Co Ltd vs ADIT: 184 Taxman 1 (Del) • CIT vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there again…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

Shri Manak Chand Modi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1067/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1067/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Manak Chand Modi The DCIT, Vs. D-185, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Circle-7, Jaipur-302015. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADDPM 4856 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. An…

M/S. V3S Infratech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3853/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sunjay Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-3853/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) V3S Infratech Ltd. Vs. ACIT Central Circle -23, (Formerly known as M/s. Jhandewalan Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd.) New Delhi A-20, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I New Delhi PAN : AABCG9474A Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Sh. Sunjay Kumar, FCA Revenue by: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 27.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee…

Tcg Development India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed and reassessment is quashed

ITA 4310/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishitcg Development India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 100, Ground Floor, Ward-16(1), Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- New Delhi Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaact2836J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “d”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TCG Development India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ITO, 100, Ground Floor, Ward-16(1), Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- New Delhi III, New Delhi PAN: AAACT2836J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Atul Ninawal, CA Revenue by: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by assessee against order of LD CIT (A) 19, New Delhi dated 31.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2007…

B H Ramachandra, Hassan District vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Guduswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…asons for reopening also. The contention of the assessee that the reopening was done on account of change of opinion was also rejected by Ld CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Ltd (348 ITR 485)(Del). The AO has noticed that the assessee has made sub-contract payment for labour supplies to four persons and the assessee admitted that he did not deduct tax at source. Before the AO, the assessee furnished certificates obtained from a Chartered Accountant certifying that the income of each of the labour contractor was less than taxable limi…

Balbir Ispat P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6953/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish V. Pophane, DR

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

…is fulfilled on the confirmation of a reason to believe that income has escapement assessment. A reason to believe is what is relevant and not an established fact of escapement of income. Reliance is placed on judgement in the case of M/s Usha International, 348 ITR 485 (Delhi High court). In view of the above facts and the judicial decisions, I have reason to believe that income, in the grab of excess share application money received has escaped assessment in terms of provisions of Section 47 of the IT Act. 4. The assessee raised objection against reopening of the assessment, which was rejected by the AO vide…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…t. CIT(A) 38 DTR 220 (Mumbai) xiv CIT(A) vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 46 DTR 109 (Del.) xv. Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 135 TTJ 33 (Del.) xvi. CIT(A) vs. Hero Auto Ltd. 343 ITR 342 (Del.) xvii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- xviii. 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) The Ld. AR further submitted that when the deduction u/s 10A has been dealt by the Assessing Officer in original assessment u/s 143(3) (PB 30-41) in most extensive manner and ultimately disallowed the claim, then how that order can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the order under revision has to be erroneous…

Vishesh Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4464/Del/2018 A.Y. : 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 26(2), M/S VISHESH INFRASTRUCTURE NEW DELHI P. LTD., Vs. PUJA HOUSE, 34/1, VIKAS APARTMENT, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI – 110 026 (PAN: AACCV4079M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Tarun Batra, CA Department by : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 04.4.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- “…

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stands

ITA 6656/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-27(2), M/S. Merit Magnum Construction Room No. 420, 4Th Floor, Samruddhi, Office Floor, Plot No. 157, 18Th Road, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly. Station Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Nr. Ambedkar Garden, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aacfv 9391 F (Revenue) (Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…support of their contention, the decision in the case of CIT v/s. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266(SC) and R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs/. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570(SC) have also been referred to. h) Decision in the case of CIT v/s. Usha International Ltd. [348 ITR 485] regarding reopening of the assessment prompted by a mere change of opinion has been referred to and it has been contended that since original assessment order was passed after accepting the return which contained existence of security deposits and additional security deposits received from SRPL, the assessment cannot be reopened as it amounts to…

ITO, Khurda vs. Bularam Dalai, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda/Bhimsen Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80C

…e u/s.68. The assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that there was no failure on its part to make a disclosure of material facts and the reopening was based on change of opinion. The department relied on the Full Bench verdict in Usha International, 348 ITR 485 and argued that as the AO did not apply his mind at all to the question regarding the said capital contribution, it could not be said that there was a "change of opinion". The High Court has allowed the petition as under: (i) In the recorded reasons, no details are provided as to what such information is which excited the AO's notice and attenti…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/929/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ITA 929/2018+connected Page 1 of 16 $~36, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision: 28th August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD...... Respondent Through WITH ITA 932/2018 & CM No.34867/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER O…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/932/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 27Section 271Section 32

…$-36,39,40,41,47,49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision; 28^ August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate ^ versus ~ ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAQPl^ PVT. LTD..:;.^Respondent Through WITH II vi,, - ITA 932/2018 & C^M No.34867/2018 •'".i •• I.V 'rV.:' THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFTNGOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ' ,1^ \ Appellant Through: 1^. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate S' . ] * f 1, versus , n,-?, ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAOPui)!^ Respondent Through ITA 933/2018 & CM No.34868/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…e of opinion" cannot be per se reason to re-open. If the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, then, in the garb of reassessment, review would take place. Similar view has been taken in the following judgments: - CIT -vs.- Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB) Asian Paints Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) DCIT -vs.- Intelnet Global Services (P.) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 177 (Mum) (ITAT) Without prejudice to the above, it is to be noted that in response to the reason provided for re- opening the assessment, the assessee vide letter dated 12-10-2012 [Refer PB Pg. 23-33] objected to t…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kargwal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross- objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M. Naveen, DR

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

…e application/share premium and no M/s Kargwal Construction 4 ITA No. 7108/Mum/2016 & CO No. 75/Mum/2018 opportunity was given to the assessee to explain anything on the issue of share premium. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision in CIT v. Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Delhi), Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India v. Addl CIT 350 ITR 651, Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147 and held that the reopening the assessment done by the AO was only on the basis of guess-work and mere change in opinion. The Ld. CIT(A) thus concluded that there was no merit in reopening of the asses…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

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

…ories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 37 Ms. Seema Dilip vora (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisions of the Act. But Explanation 1 to the section c…

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…tions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments: - 13 - [a] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.,’ vs. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] [b] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD.’ [2012] 348 ITR 485 (DELHI). [c] M/s. RADHASOAMI SATSANG, SAOMI BAGH, AGRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [(1992) 1 SCC 659]. [d] ‘‘MESSEE DUSSELDORF INDIA P. LTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PR…

M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 56/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Vs. The Acit, 269, Industrial Area-A, Circle-7, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. Aadcs4217P

For Appellant: Shri Lalit TakyarFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent case, it cannot be said that the AO had applied his mind on the issue of subsidy received and formed an opinion regarding its treatment in the accounts ,on it. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court , in the case of CIT-VI vs Usha International Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 485 (Del) has held that whether or not the AO had applied his mind and examined the subject matter, claim etc. depends upon the factual matrix of each case, and only if he has done so, could it be said that he had formed an opinion on it. The Hon’ble High Court held that the level of enquiry required for forming an opinion on a issue varied from ca…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M & Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…s to have "reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment". (ii) The department's contention that the judgement in CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) is contrary to the Full Bench verdict in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 and the issue should be referred to a larger Bench is not acceptable because the central issue examined in the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. was as to what constituted a "change of opinion". The Court, therefore, does not consider the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. as being contrary to the decision in Usha International Ltd…