Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others

355 ITR 102High Court2013#6653 most cited

What is Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others authority for?

Reopening an assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year requires the assessee to have failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for their assessment. This condition is a prerequisite for reopening.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Dynacraft Air Controls · Smt. Sneha Joshi · 355 ITR 102 · section 147 · reassessment · limitation · four years · failure to disclose · material facts · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69CSection 153DSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationsection 153(c)section 164third party informationonus of proofincome tax settlement commissionsection 31

Judgments citing Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…t be supported by any supplementary or additional material. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 359 ITR 106 (Del) CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. (pages 90-96 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 333 (Bom) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 112-114 of JPB) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…t be supported by any supplementary or additional material. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 359 ITR 106 (Del) CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. (pages 90-96 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 333 (Bom) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 112-114 of JPB) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…t be supported by any supplementary or additional material. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 359 ITR 106 (Del) CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. (pages 90-96 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 333 (Bom) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 112-114 of JPB) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…t be supported by any supplementary or additional material. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 359 ITR 106 (Del) CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. (pages 90-96 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 333 (Bom) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 112-114 of JPB) iii) 355 ITR 102 (Bom) Dynacraft Air Controls vs. Sneha Joshi and Ors iv) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO(pages 82-89 of JPB) v) 455 ITR 286 (Bom) Tumkur Minerals (P) Ltd. v. JCIT vi) 456 ITR 261 (Bom) Survival Technologies (P) Ltd. v. DCIT vii) 69 ITR 461 (All) Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO viii) 189 ITR 786 (Pat) CIT v. Agarwalla Brothers ix) 272 ITR 154 (…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…other than the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 IT…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…other than the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 IT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…other than the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 IT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…other than the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 IT…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…other than the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 IT…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…ce issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all m…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…ce issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all m…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…ce issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all m…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…ce issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all m…

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…ce issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all m…

M/S G.B. Impex, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-3, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…rwal Vs ACIT ITA No. 995 & 996/JP/2016 order dated 11/04/2018 (2018) 58 Taxworld 280 (Jaipur)(Trib). (iii) M/s Karwasra Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 393/JP/2016 order dated 11/06/2018 (Jaipur)(Trib). (iv) Dynacraft Air Controls Vs. Sneha Joshi & ors. (2013) 355 ITR 102 (Bom)(HC). (v) CIT Vs. Eco Media (P) Ltd. (2012) 81 CCH 85 (Mad.)(HC) The ld AR has submitted that the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the cases cited (supra) have considered an identical issue and found that the reopening was not valid when the original assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessment was reopened afte…

M/S G.B. Impex, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 624/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…rwal Vs ACIT ITA No. 995 & 996/JP/2016 order dated 11/04/2018 (2018) 58 Taxworld 280 (Jaipur)(Trib). (iii) M/s Karwasra Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 393/JP/2016 order dated 11/06/2018 (Jaipur)(Trib). (iv) Dynacraft Air Controls Vs. Sneha Joshi & ors. (2013) 355 ITR 102 (Bom)(HC). (v) CIT Vs. Eco Media (P) Ltd. (2012) 81 CCH 85 (Mad.)(HC) The ld AR has submitted that the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the cases cited (supra) have considered an identical issue and found that the reopening was not valid when the original assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessment was reopened afte…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishandwalaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50B

…not be reopened after a period of four years,that the AO had not issued notice u/s.143(2)of the Act within a period of six months and passed the reassessment order,that the order of the AO was ab-initio void.He relied upon the cases of Dynacraft Air Controls (355 ITR 102); Hindustan Lever Ltd. (268 ITR 332) and Interactive Marketing (ITA 6959/Mum/2012,dt.20.8.2014, A.Y. 2003-04). 64/Mum/2015(Hexaware ) 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.Before proceedings further we would like to reproduce the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening the assessment for the year under appea…

Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others (355 ITR 102) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax