CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

340 ITR 66High Court2012#978 most cited

What is CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment order cannot be upheld if the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 are furnished to the assessee only after the completion of the reassessment, or are not furnished at all. The assessee has a fundamental right to be provided with these reasons to file objections.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · reasons recorded · furnishing of reasons · notice under section 148 · void ab initio · income escaping assessment · objection to reasons

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 5321 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151Section 68Section 69ASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessmentreopening of assessmentescapement of incomesection 151reason to believenotice under section 148tangible materialreassessment proceedingsspeaking orderfirst appealsection 148unexplained money

Judgments citing CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Procyon Offshore Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4951 & 4952/Mum/2012, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd. Acit, -5(1) Mumbai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Procycon Offshore Services P.Ltd.),Lic Bldg. Plot No.54, Vs. Sector-Ii,Cbd-Belapur-400 614. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम िधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर िधिनयम िधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 20/04/2012, Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Considering The Fact That The Issues Involved In Both The Cases Are Almost Identical, We Are Adjudicating Both Appeals By Single Order.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes & Assessed Incomes Etc., Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Dt. Assessed Cit(A) Order Dt. Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) 2004-05 25.10.2004 Nil 24.12.2009 1,05,47,180/- 20.04.2012 2005-06 28.10.2005 Nil 24.12.2009 95,910/- 20.04.2012

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4951 & 4952/Mum/2012, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष…

Ratandevi Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…sessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Tata International Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum.); ii) CIT v/s Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) 7. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted, before initiation of proceeding under section 147, the Assessing Officer has complied to the statutory formalities by recording the reasons for re–opening. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the reasons for re–opening the assessment is not only discernible form…

Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Moradabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6611/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantshri Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva Vs. Dcit, Range-1, C/O M/S Shubham Nursing Home, Moradabad Civil Lines, Moradabad (Pan: Alfps8175E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 154

…isions, wherein on similar facts and circumstances the assessment declared null and void. - Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics 2015-TIOL-2393-HC-Mum. - Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) - Decision of the Third Member Bench of ITAT in the case of Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. VS. DCIT 2(3) 2012 TIOL-532-ITAT-MUM-TM. - Decision of the Coordinate Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of M/s Synopsys International vs. DDIT (Int. Taxation) dated 10.12.2012 in ITA No. 549/Bang/11. - Decision of Coordinate Bench of Chennai ITAT in th…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…he case of Tata Communications Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 3417/M/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02 order dated 29.1.2016. The assessee company also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom) to contend that it is not sufficient on the part of the Revenue to give reasons along with assessment order or after the assessment order. The ld. Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of CIT v. Trend Electronics , (2015) 94 CCH 0049(Bom) . The. ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the reasons for re- opening in the instant appeal has be…

M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2205/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacu1678F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACU1678F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 16.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 16/02/2015 of…

A.C.I.T, Cir-I, Asansol vs. Subhamoy Mondal, Burdwan

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1687/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1687 & 1688/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06

For Appellant: Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 133ASection 144Section 148

…that the order assessments framed by the AO without furnishing the assessee copies of the reasons recorded is not valid in law and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) wherein it was held that if the AO does not provide reasons within a reasonable time on request from the assessee the re-assessment is invalid. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO on the aforesaid objections by the assessee. In the remand report the AO reported that the reasons recorded are either not available in the assessme…

Shri Sharad D. Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2157/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…aise objections before the Assessing Officer against the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. In support of such contention, assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. v/s ITO, [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Tata International Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum.). Further, learned counsel submitted, the reasons communicated to the assessee on 29th December 2008, is in variance with the reason…

Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1739/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1997-98 M/S Zodiac Clothing Dcit 7(3) Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan. बनाम/ 10/76 Off Haines Rd. Worli, M. K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai -400018 Mumbai (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacz0151A

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 80I

…rious courts. It is noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has followed the said judgment in the 6 Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. case of Trends Electronics in ITA No. 1867/ 2013 dated 16.09.2015, following it earlier decisions in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd 340 ITR 66, and held that law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts, supra is clear and mandatory and it is to be strictly followed by the AO before framing the reassessment order. It has been held that powers given to AO for reopening of a completed assessment under the Income Tax Act, is an exceptional power and whenever…

M.Kannabiran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1863/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Section 148

…ing the assessment was furnished only on 22.04.2015 after completion of assessment. Therefore, the entire assessment proceeding is not valid. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 and submitted that the Bombay High Court found that when the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were not furnished to the assessee till the completion of assessment, then the reassessment 3 I.T.A. No.1863/Mds/15 proceeding cannot be upheld. In view of this judgment of the Bombay High Court, the reopening of the assessment is not valid…

Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Muller & Philpps (India) Ito 2 (2)(2) Ltd. 221, Unique Indl. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate Off Veer Savarkar Vs. Marg Prabhadevi Mumbai- Mumbai-400025. (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacm324N

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55(2)

…of the same to the assessee, the AO cannot make valid reopening of the assessment and cannot frame reassessment order. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.), Tata International Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum)., Synopsys International vs. DDIT ITA no.549/Bang/2011 dt. 10.12.2012 (Bang.)(Trib.), CIT vs. Rajindra Roshin & Turpentine Industries (2008) 305 ITR 161 (P&H) (162) and Rajoo Engg. vs Dy. CIT (2008) 218 CTR 53(Guj). It was thus argued that the reopening is without mandate of law and…