Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

241 ITR 672High Court2000#2164 most cited

What is Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An assessment cannot be reopened under section 147 if the Assessing Officer lacks fresh tangible material and the reopening is based on a mere change of opinion. The first proviso to section 147, requiring failure of the assessee to disclose true and material facts, is crucial when reassessment is initiated after four years.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,383 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT · 241 ITR 672 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reopening assessment · change of opinion · fresh tangible material · failure to disclose · true and material facts · first proviso to section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 139Section 37Section 151

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosureamp expendituresection 92basection 147(a)sanction under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147section 148(2)transfer pricing orderkelvinatorfresh tangible materialmere change of opinion

Judgments citing Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [PAN:AFBPR0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Resp…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in our opinion, the reopening is invalid beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. Some of the relevant case law are discussed hereunder: 6.1 In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 241 ITR 672, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish even prima facie, a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material fact for the assessment and accordingly quashed the notice. The head-notes of the above judgement are reproduced as under: Mere escape…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 427/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in our opinion, the reopening is invalid beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. Some of the relevant case law are discussed hereunder: 6.1 In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 241 ITR 672, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish even prima facie, a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material fact for the assessment and accordingly quashed the notice. The head-notes of the above judgement are reproduced as under: Mere escape…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. P.Janakiraman, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, Income Tax, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6Th Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Aajpj1327J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Quashing The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, Income Tax, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6th Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [PAN:AAJPJ1327J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Sh…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1st Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [PAN:AACCN2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Hema Bhup…

Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4824/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D. R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

…in the case of M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT dated 23.11.2016. He also relied upon several other decisions of the co-ordinate benches. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 672. ii. It was further stated that the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2009-10 whereas the ld. Assessing Officer referred to the SEBI probe during March, 2010. He further submitted that the transactions entered into are not the year-end transaction, but were effected in June, 2008. iii. It was further stated that neither the brokers were…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2425/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.2425/Chny/2019 Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Shriram Epc Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.18/03, Income Tax, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Vs. Company Circle – 6(1), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai – 600 034. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Aafcs 1410C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021

For Respondent: Mr. S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Foramer France reported in 264 ITR 566. He also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fenner (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 241 ITR 672 and submitted that in view of the above two decisions of the Hon‟ble I.T.A No.2425/Chny/2019 :- 5 -: Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court the reopening u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 9. We have hear…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), 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

…673 (Bom) 68. Pe/co Lectronics & Electricals Ltd, 210 ITR 991 (Cal) 69. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 216 ITR 317 (Guj) 70. Garden Silk Mills Ltd, 222 ITR 27 (Guj) 71. Veer Overseas Ltd, ITA No. 510 of 2009 (P & H) 72. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 73. Dulli Chand Singhania, 269 ITR 182 (P&H) 74. Babu Lai Jug Raj & Co.. 289 ITR 115 (Raj) 75. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF). 306 ITR 173(Del) 76. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, 308 ITR 38 (Del) 77. India Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd, 171 Taxman 379 (Del) 78. Wei Intertrade (P) Ltd, 308 ITR 22 (Del) 79. J P Bajpai HUF, 269 ITR…

ITO, Ward-3, Vellore vs. V M Venkatesa Mudaliar & Sons, Arakkonam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 922/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. V.M. Venkatesa Mudaliar & Sons, Ward 3, 42-A, Melkalathur Village, Vellore Karnam Street, Arakkonam 631 001. [Pan Aaefv 5324J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. V.M. Venkatesa Mudaliar & Sons, Ward 3, 42-A, Melkalathur Village, Vellore Karnam Street, Arakkonam 631 001. [PAN AAEFV 5324J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /…

Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 668/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…following plethora of case laws. 01. CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. Tanmac India vs. DCIT, (2019) 97 CCH 189 (Mad) 03. Principal CIT vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, (2018) 99’…

Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…following plethora of case laws. 01. CIT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) 02. Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) 03. CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, 252 ITR 640 (Mad) 04. CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) 05. CIT vs. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 06. CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) 07. CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Finance Corp Ltd, 306 ITR 136 (Mad) and he further relied on the followings judgments. 01. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. Tanmac India vs. DCIT, (2019) 97 CCH 189 (Mad) 03. Principal CIT vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, (2018) 99’…

M/S. Mkm Finsec (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6366/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2001-02]

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Chadha, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2001-02] M/s MKM Finsec [Pvt] Ltd Vs. The I.T.O 301, Dhaka Chamber Ward - 6 (1) 2068/39, Naiwala, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AAACM 6961 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Madhav Kapur Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Chadha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…P) LTD. (2008) 2967 ITR 342 (DEL.) - SHEONATH SINGH VS. ACIT (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) - DALMIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT & ANR. 64 DTR 417 - BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. VS. DCIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2001 VIDE ORDEDR DATED 12.6.2014. - FENNER INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 241 ITR 672 (MAD.) - WEL INTERTRADE (P) LTD. VS. ANR. VS. ITO - CIT VS. ITRATHRAM AHUJA (HUF) (2008) 6DTR 335 (DEL.) - PR. CIT VS. MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS P LTD. 395 ITR 677 (DEL.) - PR. CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) - PR. CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD. 391 ITR 11 DATED 11.1.2017 - CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME AND CHEMICALS LTD. ITA NO. 82 TO 89/2012 DA…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 3Dplm Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is also hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2789/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2789/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Floor, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- 400020. 400708. Co. No.296/Mum/2017 (Ita. No. 2789/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Dcit-14(3)(1)-Mumbai Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th Room No.455, Aayakar Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Bhavan Maharashi Karve Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- Marg, Mumbai-400020. 400708. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1421B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri K. Ved (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed

For Appellant: Shri K. Ved (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148

…ons of proviso to section 147 of the Act and the legal position on the issue as held by the various courts in the case of CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC), CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC), Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 241 ITR 672 (Mad), Bhavesh Developers Vs. AO, 329 ITR 249 (Bom), Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT 308 ITR 195, (Bom) and also various other judgements cited by the appellant, the AO was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the same is quashed. The appellant’s ground of appeal on this issue is allowed. Consequently, the merits of ground…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…a) Ltd. v. ITO: (1987) 168 ITR 296 (P&H). (f) In Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (g) Avtec v. DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del.). 12 Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (m) CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.: 171 Taxman 379 (Del.). (n) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 308 ITR 22 (Del.). (o) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. :…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…mity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed." 19. In an identical circumstances, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue in the decision reported in Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2000] 241 ITR 672 (Mad), wherein, it was observed as follows: "The pre-condition for the exercise of the power under section 147 in cases where power is exercised within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is the belief reasonably entertained by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd, Raipur(Cg)

ITA 98/BIL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. , Raman
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…Revenue has conceded that neither in the reasons recorded nor in the order dt. 13th March, 2003, has the assessee been charged with failure to disclose, fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. In Fennei (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2000) 241 ITR 672 (Mad), similar matter had come up for consideration before the Madras High Court and it has been held as under: “The precondition for the exercise of the power under Section 147 in cases where power is exercised within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is the belief reasonably "entertained by the AO that any inco…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Karaikudi

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

ITA 519/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 09.11.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cer has issued a notice under section 148 after four years; therefore, proviso to section 147 is applicable to assessee’s case. In this context, certain judicial precedence needs to be considered to decide the issue. In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 241 ITR 672, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that in order to reopen an assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer must summarily record his reasonable 1belief that income has escaped assessment, but also default on failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the ma…

Crr Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…arely apply to the case of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 19. In an identical circumstances, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue in the decision reported in [2000] 241 ITR 672 (Mad) Fenner (India) Ltd. - Vs - Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, wherein, it was observed as follows: “The pre-condition for the exercise of the power under section 147 in cases where power is exercised within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is the belief reasonably entertained by the Assessing Officer that…