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

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3855/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

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…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3854/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 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…xcessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed " 2.4.10 Interpreting and highlighting the significance of the said Explanation in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 200 CTR (Del) 433 : (2006)281 ITR 394 (Del) it has been held. 5 A.Y.2009-10 "9. The above would show that esses tailing in ct.(c) of Expln. 2 in which income chargsable to tan has been underassessed or assessed at too tow a rate or cases in which income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or where excessive loss or depreciation allowance of any other allowan…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

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

…other hand, if the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and committed a lapse, there is no reason why the assessee should be made to suffer the consequences of that lapse. 2.6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) held as under: 9 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopeni…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…the Act, wherein also it was held that mere production of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account would not amount to disclosure. He then referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del), wherein it has been held that re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were permissible even if the Assessing Officer gathered his reason to believe from the very same record as had CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings. He then made reference to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble H…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…the Act, wherein also it was held that mere production of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account would not amount to disclosure. He then referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del), wherein it has been held that re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were permissible even if the Assessing Officer gathered his reason to believe from the very same record as had CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings. He then made reference to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble H…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…gh action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that it was based on mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings was, therefore, not justified. (2) In Consolidated and Fin vest Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Delhi), the High Court held that the doctrine of change of opinion could not be a basis for reopening completed assessments and would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer had applied his mind (in earlier assessment) and taken conscious decision on a particular matter in issue, and it would have no application, where the o…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. CIT (OSD), Range-10, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…gh action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that it was based on mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings was, therefore, not justified. (2) In Consolidated and Fin vest Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Delhi), the High Court held that the doctrine of change of opinion could not be a basis for reopening completed assessments and would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer had applied his mind (in earlier assessment) and taken conscious decision on a particular matter in issue, and it would have no application, where the o…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…gh action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that it was based on mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings was, therefore, not justified. (2) In Consolidated and Fin vest Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Delhi), the High Court held that the doctrine of change of opinion could not be a basis for reopening completed assessments and would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer had applied his mind (in earlier assessment) and taken conscious decision on a particular matter in issue, and it would have no application, where the o…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…gh action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that it was based on mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings was, therefore, not justified. (2) In Consolidated and Fin vest Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Delhi), the High Court held that the doctrine of change of opinion could not be a basis for reopening completed assessments and would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer had applied his mind (in earlier assessment) and taken conscious decision on a particular matter in issue, and it would have no application, where the o…

Assitant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. H.A. Developers, Pune

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue

ITA 478/PUN/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 478/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…Tax (Appeals). Further, to buttress his submissions, the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Dalmia (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) ii) Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 281 ITR 394 ( Delhi) iii) Dr.Amin’s Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (No.1) 252 ITR 673 (Bombay) 4. The notice of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 05.02.2017 for 18.04.2017. The notice was duly served as is evident from acknowledgement available on the file. On 18.04.2017, the case was adjourned to 27.07.…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…the other hand, if the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and committed a lapse, there is no reason why the assessee should be made to suffer the consequences of that lapse. 4.7. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Photo and Finvest Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) held as under: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be eit…

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

…ejecting the objection to initiation of reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 are quashed and set aside. 11. The Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 2.8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) held as under:- "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be eit…

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

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

…ejecting the objection to initiation of reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 are quashed and set aside. 11. The Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 2.8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) held as under:- "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be eit…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 920/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147Section 194HSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9

…the decision reached by the ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 in the instant case. For this view, we stand fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del) and of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel vs. ACIT 236 ITR 832 (Guj). The decisions relied on by the appellant are not found applicable, being based on different footing and ITA No. 920/Del./2017 9 distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Consolidated Pho…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 3859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamimyahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…eopening 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) 559 and Consolidated Photo & finvest Ltd. V. AT 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…

Sulochana Bhimaraja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Maurya, JCITFor Respondent: 14.07.2017
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…re is no discussion in the assessment order on the determination of the value of the investment made by the assessee. (vi) Reliance was placed in the decisions of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 281 ITR 394 vide order 17.01.2006 and in the case Delhi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 81 ITR 95 etc., 4.1 Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the re-opening by observing as under:- “13. From the perusal of the above observations and the findings of the Assessing Officer, it becomes quite evident that the AO had thoroughly and properly dealt with th…

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3629/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5Th Floor 201, Vastushilp Annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above Hdfc Bank, Gamadia Colony Rd. Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabct 2852 P Co.Sno./13&14/Mum/2017 वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 ) (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Dcit-5(3)(2) Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-Dr Assessee By: D.V. Lakhani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M. लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 22.10.2013 & 31.03.2015 Of The Cit(A),The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assesse Have Filed Appeals/Cross Objections For The Above Mentioned Two Years. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Software.

For Appellant: D.V. Lakhani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं, शि"जीत डे, "याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-5(3)(2) M/s. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5th Floor 201, Vastushilp annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above H…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…. 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…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…. 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…