Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v. DCIT

428 ITR 117High Court2020#9786 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v. DCIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment solely based on the accounting practice of carrying forward closing stock as opening stock in the subsequent financial year. This practice does not inherently indicate escaped income.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v. DCIT · 428 ITR 117 · reopening assessment · closing stock · opening stock · escaped income · Section 147 · Section 148

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v. DCIT

Venkata Sai Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1624/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…en shown as the opening stock of FY 2009-10, there is absolutely no error for which the AO could have reopened the assessment. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the reopening is not valid i.Madhurai Power Corporation vs.DCIT reported in 428 ITR 117 (Ap.HC) ii.CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (Del.Hc) iv.CIT vs. Atul kumar Swami reported in 362 ITR 693 (Del.HC) 6 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 v. Pr.CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 vi. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 001…

Vasu Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1623/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…en shown as the opening stock of FY 2009-10, there is absolutely no error for which the AO could have reopened the assessment. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the reopening is not valid i.Madhurai Power Corporation vs.DCIT reported in 428 ITR 117 (Ap.HC) ii.CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (Del.Hc) iv.CIT vs. Atul kumar Swami reported in 362 ITR 693 (Del.HC) 6 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 v. Pr.CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 vi. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 001…

Vasu Pharma Distributors, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1622/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…en shown as the opening stock of FY 2009-10, there is absolutely no error for which the AO could have reopened the assessment. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the reopening is not valid i.Madhurai Power Corporation vs.DCIT reported in 428 ITR 117 (Ap.HC) ii.CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (Del.Hc) iv.CIT vs. Atul kumar Swami reported in 362 ITR 693 (Del.HC) 6 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 v. Pr.CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 vi. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 001…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( Manav Mangal Society), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specified persons so the A.O. was having a bonafide belief that the income has escaped…

Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v. DCIT (428 ITR 117) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax