Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

281 ITR 3941Reported decision2006#24331 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10A Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 144C(3)

Issues it is cited on

mere change of opinion change of opinion escapement of income reopening of assessment notice under section 148 section 142 reassessment proceedings section 142(1)section 143(2)section 15 section 148 section 147

Judgments citing Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ish to the Assessing Officer complete and correct information and details it is required and under an obligation to disclose. Burden is on the assessee to make full and true disclosure. 11. In the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 3941 , the Delhi High Court has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court and observed :— "In Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 , the Apex Court held that in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice for reopening th…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…opening of assessment in such cases, nor can it be said that the reassessment is based only on a change of opinion. A Division Bench of this Court of which I was a Member had in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT disposed of on 17-1-2006 [2006] 281 ITR 3941 an occasion to deal with a somewhat similar situation. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decisio…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35