Foramer France v. CIT

247 ITR 436High Court2001#1470 most cited

What is Foramer France v. CIT authority for?

The High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, clarifies the scope of reassessment under the new Section 147 (post-1989 amendment), holding that reassessment is invalid if the assessee fully disclosed material facts or if the issue was already examined during the original assessment under Section 143(3), especially for proceedings initiated beyond four years.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Foramer France v. CIT · 247 ITR 436 · reassessment · Section 147 · escaped assessment · Section 147 proviso · failure to disclose material facts · original assessment · Section 143(3) · beyond four years · 1989 amendment Section 147 · reason to believe

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 11(4)section 4asection 164(2)section 11(6)advancement of general public utilitysection 153(3)section 44bbsection 147(b)section 44bsection 13(2)section 11(4a)

Judgments citing Foramer France v. CIT

M/S Ratna Cafe, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 9, Chennai

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

ITA 1509/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…his issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566, wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France vs. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 436. 10. As regards to case law cited by ld. Senior DR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Girilal and Company, supra stated that disclosure should be in return of income. We have gone through case law cited by ld. Senior DR and noted that the assessee has not correctly disclosed the actual asset of plots and hence, Hon’ble Supreme Court h…

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

…at paragraph – 3 of this order). I.T.A No.2425/Chny/2019 :- 7 -: 14. In this context, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Foramer France (supra) held as under: “From the decision of the High Court (see [2001] 247 ITR 436 that (i) section 147 substituted in the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, had made a radical departure from the original section 147, inasmuch as clauses (a) and (b) had been deleted and under the proviso thereto notice for reassessment would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the assessmen…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…support from the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultu…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Lakhani, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 3638/Mum/2014 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2005-06) The Income Tax Officer, Aristo Realty Developers Ward 6(1)(3), R. No. 508, Ltd. 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 16th Floor, C-Wing, Trade Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Word Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सु…

M/S.Samkit Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3980/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer V. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aakfs 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer v. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AAKFS 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Pelican Credits & Scurities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

ITA 2413/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…by the taxpayers at large in the court of law and courts have quashed the notice issued by Revenue authorities or quashed the re-assessment orders. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Foramer vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All) wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High court has considered the issue as under: - ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 “Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. It may be mentioned that a new section substituted section 147 with effect from 1-4- 1989. The relevant part of the new section…

DCIT- Cir- 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Imperial Procurement Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2737/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Jacinta Zimik Vishai, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…by the taxpayers at large in the court of law and courts have quashed the notice issued by Revenue authorities or quashed the re-assessment orders. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Foramer vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All) wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High court has considered the issue as under: - “Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 18 It may be mentioned that a new section substituted section 147 with effect from 1-4- 1989. The relevant part of the new section 147 is as follows :…

DCIT4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5712/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5712/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Arcadia Shares & Stock Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, 328/324, Ninad Chs, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Bldg No. 7, Service Mumbai-400 020 Road, Near Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaca4562G प्रत्याक्षेप M./ Co No. 44/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 5712/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09) Arcadia Shares & Stock The Dy. Commissioner Of Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) 328/324, Ninad Chs, 1St Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Bldg No. 7, Service Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Bhavishya Nidhi Road, Mumbai-400 020 Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram, Ms Neelam Jadhav, Ars सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 5712/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner of Arcadia Shares & Stock Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 640, 6th Floor, 328/324, Ninad CHS, 1st Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Bldg No. 7, Service Mumbai-400 020 Road, Near Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- /…

M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Private Limited.(Formerly Known As Tcg Lifesciences Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2261/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

…o initiate reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. 10. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) affirmed the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All), wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as under: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. It may be mentioned that a new section substituted section 147 of the Income-tax Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. The relevant par…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…. We do not see how any other view can be taken if the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement is directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil.” In the case of CIT vs. Foramer France: 247 ITR 436 (All.) (enclosed as annexure 3), relied by the DRP, the assessee, a foreign company incorporated in France, was engaged in the business of oil exploration and providing expertise and assistance in the said field throughout the world. During the assessment year 1988-89, the petitioner-company was operating under three contracts with the ONGC, for…

Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.361/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward 4(1), Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm0703Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 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) 8, Chennai Dated 06.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Also Confirming The Addition Of ₹.3,10,33,094/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act.

For Respondent: Ms. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f the Act beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Foramer France [264 ITR 566] affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Foramer France [247 ITR 436], wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment, the assessment cannot be reopened under section 147 of the Act and is barred by limitation. It was also held that the assessment cannot be reopened on mere change of opinion. In the case o…

Panther Fincap & Management Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1326/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Panther Fincap & Management The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle Bhupen Chambers, Ground 40, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 023 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./ Pan No. Aaacp3045P अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Dr. P Daniel, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री एन. के. प्रधान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 1326/Mum/2012 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Panther Fincap & Management The Asst. Commissioner of Services Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle Bhupen Chambers, Ground 40, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 023 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./ PAN NO. AAACP3045P…

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

…ort from the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 37 Ms. Seema Dilip vora (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 3…

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

…. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), ii. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), 23 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…n opinion and therefore the reassessment order based on change in opinion is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through the reasons recorded for re-op…

Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 660/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…n opinion and therefore the reassessment order based on change in opinion is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through the reasons recorded for re-op…

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

…Hon‟ble High Courts in following cases:- i. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), ii. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR…

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

…Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- i. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), ii. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR…

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

…Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- i. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), ii. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), vii. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), viii. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), ix. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…iate the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act.” Thus, the court held that even under the newly substituted section 147, with effect from April 1, 1989, an assessment could not be reopened on a mere change of opinion. Yet again in Foramer’s case [2001] 247 ITR 436, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that if a notice under section 147/ 148 was issued after the coming into force of the amended Act, the latter shall be attracted. However, it is observed that (page 444) : “Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to be…