Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.V/s. DDIT(E)(361 ITR 160)(Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. ACIT

267 ITR 673High Court2004#6627 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 112(1)Section 115JAA Section 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

first proviso to section 147 kelvinator reason to believe escapement of income reopening of assessment reassessment proceedings section 139 section 143(2)section 148 section 147 section 15 section 13

Judgments citing Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.V/s. DDIT(E)(361 ITR 160)(Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. ACIT

SHANKER LAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3808/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

Section 147

…ed V/s. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited. Vis. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533) (Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors. V/s ITO (313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. V/s. DDIT(E) (361 ITR 160) (Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) (j) Pr.CIT, Central-11 vs DSC Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 535 (Delhi) 8. In the instant case, the AO has clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded that ‘no assessment has been carried…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…- Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 161 (Bom) - Hindutan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) - - BhogwatiSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. vs. DCIT: 269 ITR 186 (Bom) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 200 (Bom) - Grindwell Norton vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 673 (Bom) - - CIT v. Abdul Rahman Sait: 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) - Asteroids Trading and Investment P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 308 ITR 190 (Bom.) - CIT v. JyotiDevi; 218 CTR 264 (Raj.) - Cartinilndia Ltd.: 224 CTR 82 (Bom) - CIT v. Mittal Casting Ltd.; 124 Taxman 11 (Del.) 19. In the facts of the present case, as stated supra, it is reiterated that undisputedly n…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…ITR 183 (Bom.) 5. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: 232 CTR 260 (Del.) 6. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: 308 ITR 38 (Del.) 7. German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT: 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) 8. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT: 268 ITR 339 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO: 208 ITR 509 (Cal.) 11. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. v. DCIT: 210 ITR 991 (Cal.) 12. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) 13. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. DCIT: 222 ITR 27 (Guj.) CIT vs. Veer Overseas Ltd.: ITA No. 510 of 2009 (P&H.) 18. In the present case, admittedly…

HALLEX APPLIED POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 230/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT - [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)] 3. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 (Bom)) 4. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bom)] 5. Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom)] 3.4. The AO held that as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee company was mandatorily required to furnish its return of income or loss for every previous year and by not doing so, there is failure on its part by not offering the taxable income by not furnishing the return of income and the income getting escape…

NAGPUR POWER & INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

…Page No. | 6 M/s. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd c) That the C.I.T.(A) has erred in not following the following decisions:- 1) IPCA Laboratories Vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416,419 (Bom) 2) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 266 ITR 566,572 (Bom) 3) Grindwell Norton Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 673, 676 (Bom) 4) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332, 334 (Bom) 5) Supreme Treves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bom) 6) Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 9) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 222 ITR 27, 29, 30…

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)] 3. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 (Bom)] 4. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT 4. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT-[(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bom)] [(2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom)] 5. Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT 5. Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom)] 5.1.10 In the instant case, all relevant facts were disclosed in audited financial 5.1.10 In the instant case, all relevant facts were disclosed in audited financial 5.1.10 In the instant case, all relevan…

M/S KAMAT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 336/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh Sandip Bhandare, C.AFor Respondent: Sh Mayur Kamble, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…pply to the present case of the firm which is reopened by A.O. after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd V. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 2. Grindwell Norton Ltd. V. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT 267 ITR 673. 3. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. V. Gajanand Meena, Dy. CIT 251 ITR 416 15 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. 4.4. The Learned A.R. thus, submitted that according to above judgments the reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year was not sustainable where the reasons recorded…

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

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

ITA 399/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 380 & 381/Rpr/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बनाम/ Dy.C.I.T. Secl Circle 1(1) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Vs. Mahima Commercial (Cg) Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (Cg) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2066E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, Shri Vivek RuiaFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR

Section 147

…Limited V/s. R.B.Wadkar (268 ITR 332)(Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited . V/s. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533)(Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors .V/s ITO(313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.V/s. DDIT(E)(361 ITR 160)(Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) 7.2 We simultaneously notice that there is no averment to the effect as to what material facts necessary for assessment were not disclosed by the assessee in the course of original as…

DY.C.I.T. CIR 1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. M/S SECL, BILASPUR(CG)

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

ITA 380/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, Shri Vivek RuiaFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR

Section 147

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 2396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “ए” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.2396/Kol/2019 & C.O.No.48/Kol/2019 (a/o ITA No.2396/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of M/s Gaurav Rose Real Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Estate Pvt. Ltd., C/o G K Aayakar Bhawan, 6th Floor, Steels, Sagar Estates, 2, N.C. Diutta Sarani, 4th P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Floor, Unit-3, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700 001 बनाम M/s Gaurav Rose Real / Estate Pvt. Ltd., C/o G K V/s. Steels,…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…(P&H) 26. NYK Line (India) Ltd. 68 DTR 90(Bom) 27. Bhor Industries Ltd, 267 ITR 161 (Bom) 28. Hindustan Lever Ltd, 268 ITR 332 (Bom ) 29. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, 269 ITR 186(Bom) 30. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. 267 ITR 200 (Bom ) 31. Grindwell Norton , 267 ITR 673 (Bom) 32. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd. 296 ITR 342(Del) 33. Abdul Rahman Sail. 306 ITR 142 (Chennai) 34. Asteroids Trading and Investment P. Ltd, 308 ITR 190 (Bom) 35. Jyoti Devi. 218 CTR 80 (Bom) 36. Cartini India Ltd. 224 CTR 82 (Bom) 37. Mittal Casting Ltd, 124 Taxman 11 (Del) 38. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 141 (DEL) 39. Satnam Oversea…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 384 (Bom) v. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC) vi. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 1 RC 208 (SC) vii. Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 673 (Bom) viii. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 2) [2004] 268 ITR 339 (Bom) ix. United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Delhi) 2.6. In another case, of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 (Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court wherein, For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee claimed deduction under sec…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

ALPESH K. AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Alpesh K. Ajmera Vs. Ito Ward – 6(1)(2) 29, Aryan Mahal Mumbai C Road, Churchgate Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabpa7897C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…es, the deeming provision in Explanation 2 to section 147 had no application to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the impugned notice was set aside.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 673 and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT 268 ITR 339. 7. Applying the proposition of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, I do not find any merit for reopening of assessment after 5 Shri Alpesh K Ajmera completion of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully…

CRYSTAL NATURAL FOOD PROCESSORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1513/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Crystal Natural Food Vs. Ito Wd 5(1)(3) Processor Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan My Home Apartments, M.K. Road Forjet Cross Road Mumbai – 400 020 Gowali Tank Mumbai – 400 036 Pan/Gir No. Aadcc5431H Appellant) Respondent) ..

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

…ellate Asst. CIT 82 ITR 147 (SC). 8. Further reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements:-  Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. AC1T 267 ITR 161 (Bom)  Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT 267 ITR 200 (Bom)  Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT 267 ITR 673 (Bom)  Hindutan Lever Ltd. v/s. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Bhagwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT 269 ITR 186 (Bom) 5 M/s. Crystal Natural Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., 9. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, learned AR vehemently argued that the opening in the case of the assessee is not justified merely, because…

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…material truly and fully necessary for assessment. Thus, the issue of notice under section 148 is as per law. This view is also supported by decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Grind well Norton Ltd. v Jagdish Prasad Jangid ACIT and Others 267 ITR 673(Bom) wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court as under: M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 7 of 34 “ If one reads explanation 2 to section 147 of the IT Act including the proviso therefore then it is clear that where the Department re-opens assessment within a period of 4 years, it can do so on the gr…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ARISTOCRAT LUGGAGE LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH VIP INDUSTRIES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5422/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5422/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Aristocrat Luggage बनाम/ Tax -7(3), Ltd., V. Room No. 615, 6 Th Floor, (Now Merged With Vip Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Ltd.), M.K. Road, Dgp House, Mumbai 400 020. 88-C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai- 400 025. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacu0092R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43B

…HC), (iv) Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (LTU and other writ Petition bearing No. 7943/2011 – 2013-TIOL-366-HC-DEL- IT dated 23-4-2013(Del. HC) (v) Bhor Industries Ltd. v. ACIT and Others, 267 ITR 161 ( Bom. HC.) (vi) Grind Well Norton Ltd. v. ACIT, 267 ITR 673 (Bom.HC) (vii) Biswanath Tea Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, 267 ITR 687(Cal.HC) (viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. ACIT, 65 DTR 385 ( Gujarat HC.) (ix) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., SPARC v. ACIT, 2012-TIOL-527-HC-AHM-IT , (Guj. HC) In the light of above case laws, the assessee company contended that the reopening is bad in law and the assessment order…