Classic Network Ltd. v. DCIT

352 ITR 349High Court2013#9713 most cited

What is Classic Network Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reopening an assessment based on a change of opinion, by re-appreciating the same material previously considered by the Assessing Officer, is not justifiable. An amended explanation to a section, added for removal of doubts, implies the law was the same from the beginning and does not permit retrospective application of new provisions for reopening.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Classic Network Ltd. · DCIT · 352 ITR 349 · 225 Taxmann 174 · 45 Taxmann.com 234 · reassessment · reopening assessment · change of opinion · re-appreciation of material · Section 147 · Section 148 · amended explanation

Also reported as

225 Taxmann 17445 Taxmann.com 234
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Classic Network Ltd. v. DCIT

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 2. CIT Vs.Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (Del) [FBI 3.CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd.: 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. CIT Vs. Prima paper and Engineering Industry, 364 ITR 222 (Bom) 5. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.Vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj.) 6. ACIT Vs. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.: 25 Taxmann.com 301 7. ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., 348 ITR 299 (SC) 8. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 9. Rose Serviced Apartments (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del.) 10. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [20091 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 11. Indu Lata Ran…

ACIT, Range-1, Gurgaon vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 86/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Range-1 Vs 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No.Aaacj7097D (Appellan (Respondent)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 80Section 80I

…ssing Officer had applied his mind to the issue of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated in respect thereof. 19. A similar view was taken by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Parixit Industries Private Limited 352 ITR 349 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that where notice for reassessment is issued on the basis of material at the time of original assessment, the said notice was a case of second thought and was liable to be quashed. 20. Considering, the facts relating to the reopening of assessment from all legal angles we are of the opinion that the notice issu…

M/S Msk Projects (India) Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle -4(1), Baroda

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

ITA 3142/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3142/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 M/S. Welspun Projects Limited, Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Known As Msk Project Vs. Ward-4(1), (India) Ltd.,) Vadodara. 707-708, Sterling Centre, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…der: Asstt. Year 2004-05 7 At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Classic Network Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 45 taxmann.com 234(Guj), Parixit Industries P. ltd. vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj) and Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 223 taxmann 229 (Guj) (Mag). In all these judgments, the AO has earlier granted deduction under section 80IA, \ thereafter reopened the assessment by re-appreciating the same material. The Hon'ble Court has held that re- opening is being made on account of change of opinion and it is not justifi…

M/S. Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 2574/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…lied on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Ramakrishna Hedge [(2010) 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)] (ii) CIT v. Stndard Chartered Finance Ltd. [(2012) 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.) (Mag.)] / [(2012) 21 Taxman.com 495 (Kar.)] (iii) Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [(2013) 352 ITR 349 (Guj.)] (iv) H.K.Buildcon Ltd. v. ITO [(2011) 339 ITR 535 (Guj.)] (v) Lahneyer Holdings GmbH v. DCIT [376 ITR 70 (Del.)] 7 M/s.Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-op Ltd. Accordingly, the learned AR pleaded that the proposed reopening is bad in law and the assessment order is to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the reassessment is held to be bad in law the appeal of the assessee on this point is allowed

ITA 2403/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Dcit Circle -1 (1), 5Th Floor, Jindal Centre Vs 12, Bhikaji Cama Place Hsidc Building, New Delhi – 110066 Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Pan : Aaacj7097D Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 80Section 801A

…sing Officer had applied his mind to the issue of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated in respect thereof. 19. A similar view was taken by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Parixit Industries Private Limited 352 ITR 349 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that where notice for reassessment is issued on the basis of material at the time of original assessment, the said notice was a case of second thought and was liable to be quashed. 20. Considering, the facts relating to the reopening of assessment from all legal angles we are of the opinion that the notice iss…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…80IA(4) of the Act.” 12. At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Classic Network Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 45 taxmann.com 234 (Guj), Parixit Industries P.ltd. Vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj) and Sadbhav Engineering ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 223 taxmann 229 (Guj) (Mag). In all these judgments, the AO has earlier granted deduction under section 80IA, thereafter reopened the assessment by re-appreciating the same material. The Hon’ble Court has held that re-opening is being made on account of cha…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/AHD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…80IA(4) of the Act.” 12. At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Classic Network Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 45 taxmann.com 234 (Guj), Parixit Industries P.ltd. Vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj) and Sadbhav Engineering ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2014) 223 taxmann 229 (Guj) (Mag). In all these judgments, the AO has earlier granted deduction under section 80IA, thereafter reopened the assessment by re-appreciating the same material. The Hon’ble Court has held that re-opening is being made on account of cha…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 16/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 80I

…assic Network Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court referred to the following discussion in its earlier judgment in the case of Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD), 8 ITA Nos. 14-16/M/2016, 7314/M/2014 & CO No. 93/M/2016 M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 349 to hold that the amended Explanation could not be of any help for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act :- “25. It is now a settled law that if an explanation is added to a section of a statute for the removal of doubts, the implication is that the law was the same from the very beginning and the same is further explained by…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 15/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 80I

…assic Network Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court referred to the following discussion in its earlier judgment in the case of Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD), 8 ITA Nos. 14-16/M/2016, 7314/M/2014 & CO No. 93/M/2016 M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 349 to hold that the amended Explanation could not be of any help for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act :- “25. It is now a settled law that if an explanation is added to a section of a statute for the removal of doubts, the implication is that the law was the same from the very beginning and the same is further explained by…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 14/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 80I

…assic Network Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court referred to the following discussion in its earlier judgment in the case of Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD), 8 ITA Nos. 14-16/M/2016, 7314/M/2014 & CO No. 93/M/2016 M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 349 to hold that the amended Explanation could not be of any help for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act :- “25. It is now a settled law that if an explanation is added to a section of a statute for the removal of doubts, the implication is that the law was the same from the very beginning and the same is further explained by…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 80I

…assic Network Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court referred to the following discussion in its earlier judgment in the case of Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD), 8 ITA Nos. 14-16/M/2016, 7314/M/2014 & CO No. 93/M/2016 M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 349 to hold that the amended Explanation could not be of any help for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act :- “25. It is now a settled law that if an explanation is added to a section of a statute for the removal of doubts, the implication is that the law was the same from the very beginning and the same is further explained by…

Classic Network Ltd. v. DCIT (352 ITR 349) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax