Garden Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Asst.)

268 ITR 48High Court2004#7973 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 12A Section 12AA Section 13(1)(d)(iii)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator live link borrowed satisfaction income escaping assessment tangible material escapement of income reason to believe reopening of assessment accommodation entry speaking order notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings

Judgments citing Garden Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Asst.)

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 250Section 68

…13– reopening in our case for the year under consideration prior to the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. 7. We further invite your kind attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of GARDEN FINANCE LTD. vs. ACIT (268 ITR 48 pp. 92) wherein it has been held as follows: (QUOTE) "In ITO v Biju Patnaik (1991)(188 ITR 2470, the Apex Court has sounded the note of caution that the stage of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act, the court is not to go into the merits of the controversy whether the particular income is taxable. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dis…

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…go before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition as per the\njudgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drivesharfts (India)\nLtd. [2003] 259 ITR 19 and the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of Garden Finance Limited reported in 268 ITR 48. Extract from the\nJudgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Finance Limited\n[268 ITR 48] is as under:-\n\"12. What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN's case (supra) is not to\nwhittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) but to require th…

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…in Writ Petition as per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drivesharfta (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19 and the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden 11 Sh. Padam Kumar Goyal vs. ITO Finance Limited reported in 268 ITR 48. Extract from the Judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Finance Limited [268 ITR 48) is as under: “12. What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN's case (supra) is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) but to require the asse…

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…uld go before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition as per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19 and the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Finance Limited reported in 268 ITR 48. Relevant para of the judgement is extracted below:- ‘’12. What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN's case (supra) is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd's case (supra) but to require the assessee first to lodge preliminary objection before the Assessing Office…

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 304/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 148Section 151

…ng Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years." 6.1 In a subsequent decision in the case of Garden Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Asst.) [2004] 268 ITR 48 (Guj), the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts [2003] 259 ITR 19 came up for consideration and by a majority opinion it was laid down by the Hon’ble Court: "What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitut…

SHRI GIRRAJ PRASAD GILARA HUF,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…follow the procedure of considering the objections. (v) A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (No.2), (2004) 270 ITR 469 after considering the decision of this Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) held in the majority opinion as under :- “..........What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN’s case (2003) 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.’s case (1961) 41 ITR 191 but to require the assessee first to lodge preliminary objection before…

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

…55 (Del) 41. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Del) 42. Sheo Nath Singh. 82 ITR 148 (SC) document1 43. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd, 130 ITR 1. 11 (SC) 44. Birla VXL, 217 ITR 1 (Gujrat) 45. Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) 46. Garden Finance Limited, 268 ITR 48(Guj) 47. Kamlesh Sharma, 287 ITR 337 (Del) 48. Allana Cold Storage Ltd.. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) 49. Asian Paints Limited, 296 ITR 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC Ltd, 45 Taxman.com 443(Guj) 54. Lakhmani Mewal Da…

ITO (E), DEHRADUN vs. M/S ICFAI UNIVERSITY,, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 3657/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 12Section 148

…notice u/s. 148 was issued and the assessee filed objections. The Assessing Officer was bound to dispose of the same by a speaking order. 11. This was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Finance Limited reported in 268 ITR 48 where by a majority opinion it was laid down by the Hon’ble High Court : “What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.’s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case [1961] 41 ITR 191 but to require the assessee firs…

CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1222/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45(2)Section 45(3)Section 55(2)(b)

…ter back to the file of assessing officer for fresh adjudication in the light of procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive-Shalts vs. ITO 259 ITR 90 and jurisdictional high court decision in the case of Garden Finance Ltd. vs. CIT 268 ITR 48 and M& M Export Vs. DCIT 23 DTR 356 (Gujarat). 7. Thereafter, the assessing officer had made assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the act on 9th March, 2015 reiterating the same facts and determined the total income from capital gain at same amount at Rs. 83,23,674/- in the set aside assessment proceedings. I.T.A No. 1222/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 P…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1220/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.1220/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. Shri M R Seetharam (Indl.), Gokula House, Gokula, Mathikere, Bangalore-560 054. ….. Respondent. C.O. No.224/Bang/2015 (In I.T. A. No.1220/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year : 2006-07) (By Assessee) Revenue By : Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 11.09.2017. Date of Pr…

ITO, RISHIKESH vs. M/S. M.L. CREATIONS, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 4009/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Gupta, CA & Sh. P.SFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…in which the AO did address the objections) would render the assessment order bad in law. The question has to be examined in the light of decisions of the various courts. 17. In a subsequent decision in the case of Garden Finance Ltd. V. CIT (Asst.) [2004] 268 ITR 48 (Guj), the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts [2003] 259 ITR 19 came up for consideration and by a majority opinion it was laid down by the Hon'ble Court: "What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Const…

SRI. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1559/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years." 23. A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (No.2), (2004) 270 ITR 469 after considering the decision of this Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) held in the majority opinion as under :- ".......What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN case (2003) 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case (1961) 41 ITR 191 but to require the assessee first to lodge preliminary objection before the Ass…

ABHAYAM TRADING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

…nsidering the case laws on the subject, has observed as follows:- “23. A Division Bench of this court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Asst. CWT (No. 2) [2004] 270 ITR 469 (Guj), after considering the decision of this court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 48 (Guj), held in the majority opinion as under (page 474 of 270 ITR) : " 'What the Supreme Court has now done in the GKN case [2003] 259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) but to require the assessee first to lodge preliminary obj…

ABHAYAM TRADING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147