EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT

281 ITR 394High Court2006#920 most cited

What is EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Mere production of documents does not amount to full and true disclosure; the assessee must actively and specifically disclose all material facts. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 is permissible if the Assessing Officer did not consciously apply mind to an issue, or if new information revealing escapement of income comes to light.

115

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT · EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT · 281 ITR 394 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · mere change of opinion · full and true disclosure · tangible material · escapement of income · conscious decision AO · producing documents not sufficient

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 151Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 34(1)mere change of opinionfull and true disclosurekelvinatorchange of opinionsection 34live linktangible materialreason to believereopening of assessmentescapement of incomeincome-tax officer

Judgments citing EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai vs. Calvin Properties, Mumbai

ITA 6561/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…first assessment, the reopening was held valid. (vi) ITAT, Chennai in the case of Chonnsi Petroleum Corpn. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No.66/11-12/LTU(A) dated 08.01.2013 relying on the High Court of Delhi in the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd v. ACIT (281 ITR 394) (2006) and.High Court of Mumbai in the case of Dr.Amir's Pathological Laboratory v. JCIT (252 ITR 673) has held that mere production of books of account, balance-sheet^nd profit and loss account will not necessarily amount to disclosure necessary for Explanation 1 of Sec 147. (vii) High Court of Delhi in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…o be from an external source, and could be from the material on record, as further clarified in the afore-cited cases, as indeed in Sewak Ram (supra); Grover Nursing Home v. ITO [2001] 248 ITR 493 (P&H); Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del). In the present case, we have not been shown that the relevant aspect had been examined, taking a permissible view, i.e., with reference to the assessment order, to regard it as a case of review or change of opinion. Reference in this context may be made to Ess Kay Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 818 (SC) (approving that by th…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier known as Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - IV, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of t…

Shivam Enterprises Harbilas, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 194/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Malhotra (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 148

…reason could be derived from the material on record, i.e., the same material which was the subject matter of assessment proceedings, requires no emphasis (refer: Sewak Ram v. ITO [2010] 47 DTR 361 (P&H); Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del)). Even the same issue, examined in a different context, would not bar reassessment (Venus Industrial Corp. v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 742 (P&H)). At the same time, however, in my view no case for reopening of assessment is made out on the basis of the reason/s recorded. This is as the AO was, without doubt, conscious of the assessee’s busi…

M/S Nice Telecom, Mansa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…able in law. Action u/s. 147 is no doubt permissible on the basis of ‘reason/s’ to believe being derived from the same material which was the subject matter of the assessment proceedings, as clarified in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del.), and more recently by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sewak Ram v. ITO [2010] 47 DTR 361 (P&H) (copy on record), relied upon by the ld. DR, Sh. Charan Dass, during hearing. So, however, the same must be a reason/s to believe escapement of income, having a live, rational, and direct nexus with the information or the material on rec…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…s information was received at the later stage, which in our opinion was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of lim…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sharp Menthol India Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3642/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesharp Mint Ltd. Vs Dcit (Formerly Known As Sharp Menthol Central Circle-22 India Ltd. & Thereafter As Sharp New Delhi Global Ltd.) 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Sharp Mint Ltd. Central Circle-22 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, New Delhi Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80H

…. Ravindranathan Nair reported in 295 ITR 228. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs ACIT (281 ITR 394) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 8. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” C.O No. 230/Del/2009 A.Y. 2003-04 “1. That on thefacts andcircumst…

Sharp Menthol India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3624/DEL/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesharp Mint Ltd. Vs Dcit (Formerly Known As Sharp Menthol Central Circle-22 India Ltd. & Thereafter As Sharp New Delhi Global Ltd.) 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Sharp Mint Ltd. Central Circle-22 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, New Delhi Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80H

…. Ravindranathan Nair reported in 295 ITR 228. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs ACIT (281 ITR 394) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 8. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” C.O No. 230/Del/2009 A.Y. 2003-04 “1. That on thefacts andcircumst…

Sharp Menthol India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3623/DEL/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesharp Mint Ltd. Vs Dcit (Formerly Known As Sharp Menthol Central Circle-22 India Ltd. & Thereafter As Sharp New Delhi Global Ltd.) 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Sharp Mint Ltd. Central Circle-22 1St Floor, Sagar Entre, New Delhi Plot No. 9, Gujranwalan Town New Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80H

…. Ravindranathan Nair reported in 295 ITR 228. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs ACIT (281 ITR 394) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 8. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” C.O No. 230/Del/2009 A.Y. 2003-04 “1. That on thefacts andcircumst…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ze by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment, would not preclude him from reopening assessment. Thus, the assessment notice Dinesh S. Jain was held to be justified. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of li…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…age, which in our opinion was sufficient to 39 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd initiate reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of lim…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…age, which in our opinion was sufficient to 39 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd initiate reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of lim…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…nce could with due diligence have been discovered by the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure. In the context, the AO also placed reliance onto the decisions in cases of Jawand Sons [(2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H)], Consolidated Photo a Finvest Ltd [(2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del)], Dr Amin's Pathology Laboratory [(2001) 252 ITR 673 (Bom)] and ALA Firm [(1991 189 ITR 285 (SC)]. I have considered the issue and gone through the detailed submissions filed by the assessee during the appeal proceedings, which finds place in Para 3 of this order above. The issue of chargeability of interest income earned on bank fixed depo…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

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

…. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras…

Sanghi Industries Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…r evidence, which AO would have uncovered but did not uncover, is not a good ground to deny or strike down a notice for reassessment. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd., Vs. ACIT [281 ITR 394] (Del) to submit that explanation 1 and 2 would apply and production of account books or other evidence from which the AO could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents on record as well as case…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…stage, which in our opinion was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. 41 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of li…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4696/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ing is an attempt to review or reinvestigate the same or that it amounts to change of opinion. In this connection, reliance is placed on judicial precedents in the cases of EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.) wherein it has been held that the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on particular matter in issue and not where the order of assessment does not address itself to…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4695/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ing is an attempt to review or reinvestigate the same or that it amounts to change of opinion. In this connection, reliance is placed on judicial precedents in the cases of EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.) wherein it has been held that the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on particular matter in issue and not where the order of assessment does not address itself to…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ing is an attempt to review or reinvestigate the same or that it amounts to change of opinion. In this connection, reliance is placed on judicial precedents in the cases of EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.) wherein it has been held that the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on particular matter in issue and not where the order of assessment does not address itself to…