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.

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

ITTA/71/2017HC Telangana09 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Price Waterhouse & Co., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 230/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Asish Tripathi, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 40

…hat without any new tangible material, an assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act could not be reopened. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd, ITA Nos.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 6 -: 348 ITR 485 and that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd vs. ACIT, 322 ITR 369. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that remuneration to partners were allowable only as per the terms of the partnership deed and such terms in so for as it authorized any such remuneration prior to the date of its execution…

Price Waterhouse & Co., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 229/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Asish Tripathi, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 40

M/S Waycon Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1638/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

…INDEX TO CASE LAWS Sl. No. Particulars The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. 01. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. reported in [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) 03. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Allied Strips Ltd. vs.ACIT, CC15, WP(C) 2526/2015 04. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd.vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another reported in [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 05. The Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. E.I.H Ltd., ITANo.1742/Kol/2008 6. I…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), M/s Crescent Construction Co. k. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). 2.25. 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 A…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2650/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147

…o reconsideration of the material/information already on record which does not justify initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of change of opinion. Reliance is placed, inter alia, on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.)(FB) (ii). CIT vs. Goetz India Ltd., 229 CTR 167 (Del.) (iii). CIT vs. Modipon Ltd., 2011-TOIL-355-HC-DEL-IT (iv). CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company 321 ITR 526 (Del.) (v). Ferrous Infrastructure P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 120 DTR 281 (Del.) (vi). PCIT vs. Tupperware India P. Ltd., 127 DTR 161 (Del.). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the said penalty order and filed written submission reproduced in appeal order of ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on provisions of section 153A, Expl. 5A to section 271(1)(c) and on judgment of Delhi High Court in case of CIT-6 vs. Usha International Ltd. 254 CTR 509 and decision of Coordinate Bench in case of Rajnish Vohra vs DCIT ITA No. 516/CHD/2012 upheld the levy of penalty. The operative part of his order reads as under:- “3.2.3. The provisions of section 153A, 153B and 153C of the Act, are a complete code for assessment wherein search and seizure has been initiated after May 31, 2003. Thus, there is co…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1061/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…assailed on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion.” 16. The fact of the matter is that later Benches of this Court, including two Full Benches in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra) and CIT v. Usha International Ltd., (2012) 348 ITR 485 have disagreed with the view expressed by the DB in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax(supra). In fact, the decision of the FB in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). ITA Nos.1058/2011, 1061/2011 & 10…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1058/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

Commitment Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S.V. Mehrotra

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

…through the issuance of the questionnaire and notices framed the assessment under Section 143(3) on 07.10.2009. The returned income was accepted and no addition was made on account of the share application money. 8. In CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (FB), a full bench of this Court held:- "Re-assessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situations it should be 20 accepted that the issue was exam…

M/S. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 789/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 789/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 47th Milestone, Delhi-Jaipur Circle-3 Highway, Gurgaon Manesar, Gurgaon AAACP2626A (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv, Respondent by Sh. Amrender Kumar, CIT DR, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Assessment O…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Estwhile Global Trust Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for statistical

ITA 4090/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-4090/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03) DCIT, Vs Erstwhile Global Trust Bank Ltd., Circle-13(1), (Amalgamated with Oriental Bank of New Delhi. Commerce), F-14, IVth Floor, Competent House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACG7477L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by Revenue by Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CA & Sh. Aman Goel, CA ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). T…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s Ltd Vs. DGIT [2011] 333 ITR 407/198 Taxman 136/10 Taxmann.com 30[All] (iii) CIT Vs. Hastings Properties [2002] 253 ITR 124 [2001] 119 Taxman 36 [Cal] (iv) Southern Herbals Ltd vs. DIT [INV] [1994] 207 ITR 55 [Kar] (v) CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd [2012] 348 ITR 485/ 210 Taxman 188/25 Taxmann.com 200 [Delhi] (vi) J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 335 [SC] (vii) Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd Vs. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 6 [SC] (viii) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 [Del] (ix) ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 20 Taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 [Del] Page 12 of 21 14. Th…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 1190/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s available at paper book page No. 5. He has also referred the detailed submissions made before the authorities below for challenging the validity of reopening as well as on merits. He has relied on following case laws : (i). CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., 348 ITR 485 (Del.) (ii). Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. vs. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del.) (iii). Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del.) (iv). CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop Ltd., 171 Taxman 379(Del) (v). CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he st…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…e of any new information or change in facts. He places reliance on the following decisions for this proposition. i) CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1)(Del)(FB) affirmed in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) ii) CIT v Usha International (348 ITR 485)(Del)(FB) iii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) iv) Cartini India Limited v ACIT (314 ITR 275) (Bom.) v) CIT v Prima Paper & Engg. Ltd. (364 ITR 222) (Bom.) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 361)(Bom.) ix) Aron…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…eason to believe" did not mean a change of opinion." 8. Further reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements, which are on the similar propositions:- • Aventis Ph arm a Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) • CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. ( 348 ITR 485)(Delhi) • Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi) • Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) • CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) • Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.) • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT 366 ITR 115(Delhi) • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536(Delhi) • Housing Development Fina…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…Fit For Publication (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1476/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) Richa Industries Ltd., Vs ACIT, Plot No.29, DLF Ind. Area, Circle-1, Phase-II, Faridabad Faridabad. PAN-AAACR7943J (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Assessee by Sh.Vijay Kumar Singla, CA Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement 14.03.2017 ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assail…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gupta Dyefab P.Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4198/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147sSection 148Section 68

…ginal assessment. As such I agree with the contention of the appellant that the action of the Assessing officer is merely change nf opinion and is not sustainable in view of the decision of Honble Delhi Highcourt in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [348 ITR 485 (Del)] Undisputedly, in this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the first proviso to section 147 is applicable, since the assessment was already concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the proviso, for taking action under section 147 of the Income Tax the Assessing officer mus…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2754/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 33ASection 72

…Ltd Vs. CIT (291 ITR 500)(SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Foramers France (264 ITR 566) (SC) (iii) Kelvinators of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Del) affirmed in (320 ITR 561) ITA No.2754/Kol/2013 – M/s. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. A.Y.1999-2000 9 (iv) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) (Del) The CIT(A) held that the re-assessment proceedings had been initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and since the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act had already been made initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act should satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 147 namely…