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

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1061/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…dated 29th December, 2006 passed in the appeals pertaining to the three AYs in question, the CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Division Bench („DB‟) of this Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2006] 281 ITR 394(Del), came to the conclusion that since ITA Nos.1058/2011, 1061/2011 & 1063/2011 Page 6 of 11 the original assessment orders were silent on the aspect of treating the payments received by the Assessee as FTS, the jurisdictional pre-condition for attracting Section 147 stood fulfilled. 12. Aggrieved by the above order, t…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1058/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…dated 29th December, 2006 passed in the appeals pertaining to the three AYs in question, the CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Division Bench („DB‟) of this Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2006] 281 ITR 394(Del), came to the conclusion that since ITA Nos.1058/2011, 1061/2011 & 1063/2011 Page 6 of 11 the original assessment orders were silent on the aspect of treating the payments received by the Assessee as FTS, the jurisdictional pre-condition for attracting Section 147 stood fulfilled. 12. Aggrieved by the above order, t…

F Harley & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ported in (2009) 309 ITR 110 (Mad) ; (ii) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Rotork Controls India Ltd reported in (2007) 293 ITR 311 (Mad) ; (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd vs CIT reported in (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del) ; (iv) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd reported in (2011) 242 CTR 245 (Del) ; 4.2. Accordingly the assessee replied that there is no error in the claim of expenditure towards ‘provision for purchases’ made by the assessee. It was stated that the assessee had duly made the aforesaid submissions vide let…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…1] 79 ITR 582 (SC) 2. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) 3. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) 9. 3i Infotech Ltd v CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) 10. ACIT v ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd [2002] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 11. Bedmutha Industries Ltd v DCIT [2013] 87 DTR 305 (…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…cessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed." 2.4.14 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: "9. The above would show that cases falling in cl. (e) of Expln. 2 in which income chargeable to tax has been under assessed or assessed at too Iowa rate or cases in which income has been Shri Vinod K. Shah made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or where excessive loss or depreciation allowance of any other all…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…cessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed." 2.4.14 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: "9. The above would show that cases falling in cl. (e) of Expln. 2 in which income chargeable to tax has been under assessed or assessed at too Iowa rate or cases in which income has been Shri Vinod K. Shah made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or where excessive loss or depreciation allowance of any other all…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…. 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) 12 ITA No.7428/Mum/2013 & C.O. 99/Mum/2016 M/s Intelnet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC)…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…. 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…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 313/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Futura Polyesters Ltd. D C I T – 5(1)(2) Paragon Condominium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 3Rd Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Mumbai 400020 Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaaci3404K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…during the 5 M/s. Futura Polyesters Ltd. year were available in the records of the A.O., but it is worth noting that during the original assessment at no point of time this issue was examined by the A.O. In the case of M/s. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd., (281 ITR 394) after considering the various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when in the original assessment the A.O. has not applied his mind and he has not taken a conscious decision on a particular matter, then it cannot be said that it is a case of mere change in opinion for reopening the case. In the insta…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…nilal Gandhy and cannot be treated to be true and full disclosure, another decision in Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147 (SC), Bhagwan Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 31 STC 293 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs ITO 236 ITR 34, Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Kantamani Venkata Narain & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC), Malagaon Electricity Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs Manoranjan Pictures Corporation 228 ITR 202 (Del.) and various other decisions as mentioned in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.6. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal…

Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.N. Maurya, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 619(3)(b)

…ted within four years, the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of CIBA India Pvt. Limited vs ITO (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 71(Mumbai) is applicable. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: 1. Consolidated Photo and Finvest Limited vs ACIT (2006) 281 ITR 394(Delhi). 2. Gruh Finance Limited vs JCIT (Asst)(2000) 243 ITA No. 720/Mds/2015. :- 9 -: ITR 482 (Guj). 3. Innovative Foods Ltd. vs Union of India and Others (2013) 356 ITR . 389 (Ker). In view of the above factual position as well as the decisions of various courts, I am of the considered view that the re-opening of assessment is valid and no…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…. 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/239/2008HC Delhi20 Jan 2010

Bench: The Tribunal Was As To Whether Certain Prior Period Expenses Amounting To Rs75,96,534/- Had Been Rightly Disallowed By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2010:Dhc:317-Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…of invoking jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 9. The learned counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: 281 ITR 394(Del), to submit that no presumption can be raised that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to all the material that was available to him at the time of framing of the assessment order. She also placed reliance on the said decision to submit that action under Section 147 was permissible, even if the Assessing Officer gathered his reaso…