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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/S Quality Care India Ltd

ITTA/261/2015HC Telangana13 Jul 2016

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Appellant: Mr. J.V. PrasadFor Respondent: The Senior Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260A

….. Respondent <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for appellant : Mr. J.V. Prasad ^ Counsel for respondent : The Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department ? CASES REFERRED : 1) (2000) 241 ITR 672 2) (2006) 286 ITR 674 3) (2006) 286 ITR 674 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA I.T.T.A.No. 261 of 2015 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2946, 2947 & 2948/Mds/2014 "…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2946, 2947 & 2948/Mds/2014 "…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2946, 2947 & 2948/Mds/2014 "…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2946, 2947 & 2948/Mds/2014 "…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…IT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del).…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporationlimited, Neyveli vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…IT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del).…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…IT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del).…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli vs. ITO, Cuddalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…IT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del).…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…IT vs. Premier Mills, 296 ITR 157 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Elgi Finance, 286 ITR 674 (Mad) (3) Mercury Travels Ltd vs. CIT, 258 ITR 533 (Cal) (4) CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank , 252 ITR 640 (Mad) (5) CIT vs. Siva Traders, 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del).…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Ahuja Radios

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1054/2006HC Delhi20 Oct 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mrs Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr B.B. Ahuja Sr Advocate with
Section 260ASection 80H

…127/06,1054/06,289/07 Page No.6 of 8 The Supreme Court also noted that “the object of the modvat scheme was to reduce cost of final product by taking credit for the duty paid on the inputs.” In Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 241 ITR 672, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court noted that one of the modes of payment of excise duty is by way of adjustment of credit given to the manufacturer of the duty paid by it on excisable goods used as inputs, towards duty payable by the manufacturer on the finished product. The Court observed that the credit allowed is, therefor…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ahuja Radios

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1127/2006HC Delhi20 Oct 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mrs Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr B.B. Ahuja Sr Advocate with
Section 260ASection 80H

…127/06,1054/06,289/07 Page No.6 of 8 The Supreme Court also noted that “the object of the modvat scheme was to reduce cost of final product by taking credit for the duty paid on the inputs.” In Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 241 ITR 672, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court noted that one of the modes of payment of excise duty is by way of adjustment of credit given to the manufacturer of the duty paid by it on excisable goods used as inputs, towards duty payable by the manufacturer on the finished product. The Court observed that the credit allowed is, therefor…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahuja Radios

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/289/2007HC Delhi20 Oct 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mrs Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr B.B. Ahuja Sr Advocate with
Section 260ASection 80H

…127/06,1054/06,289/07 Page No.6 of 8 The Supreme Court also noted that “the object of the modvat scheme was to reduce cost of final product by taking credit for the duty paid on the inputs.” In Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 241 ITR 672, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court noted that one of the modes of payment of excise duty is by way of adjustment of credit given to the manufacturer of the duty paid by it on excisable goods used as inputs, towards duty payable by the manufacturer on the finished product. The Court observed that the credit allowed is, therefor…