How many judgments cite Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO (100 ITR 1), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 151, Section 142(1), Section 133(6).

Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO

100 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1975#3537 most cited

What is Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO authority for?

An assessee's duty is to provide all primary facts to the Assessing Officer; the drawing of inferences from these facts rests with the officer. A reassessment based solely on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO · section 147 · section 148 · true and full disclosure · material facts · primary facts · drawing inferences · change of opinion · reassessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 268 section 147(a)true and full disclosure first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment bogus share capital within four years mere change of opinion scheme of arrangement section 148 notice full and true disclosure kelvinator

Judgments citing Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…were provided by AO in impugned reassessment notices, same were issued by mechanically relying on information provided by Investigation Wing and without proper application of mind. e. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA- Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC)[01-05-1975] “That the assessee did not disclose the transactions evidenced by the drafts which the ITO discovered. After this discovery the ITO had in his possession all the primary facts, and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts invested in the purchase of the drafts could be treated a…

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED ,ABU ROAD vs. ITO(TJ)O-O THE PR. CIT-2,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmodern Insulators Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 Pan No.: Aabcm 0860G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthy, JCIT, Ld. DR

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

…Ltd, Jaipur. Ld. AR further contended that case is reopened to cover up lapse during original assessment proceedings. Reliance was placed by the ld. AR of the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that AO cannot take recourse to reassessment proceedings to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight. 6. Per Contra ld. DR could not submit any evidence regarding the exact date when the information was received from DIT (Inv.) Kolkata. Ld. DR sought time to obtain this information but in spite o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

…lhi in case of Usha Internationals - Limited vs CIT VI Delhi [ITA No. 2026/2010] The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chakiat - Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 200 - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amrit Feeds Ltd. - vs ACIT [2011] 51 DTR 315 (Cal) 10.6 Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 10.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have adjudicated the issues raised in the appeal on merits in favour of the assesse…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

SWATI ENERGY & PROJECTS (P) LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234D

…was no failure to disclose all material facts as the Respondent No.1 had specifically sought details as regard the relevant expenditure and which were furnished. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, to contend that the duty of the assessee was to place on record all the primary facts and drawing of inference from the primary facts is upto the Assessing Officer. However, this issue need not be gone into in depth any further, as the Petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground mentioned above. 12. In the circumstances, the Petitioner i…

ASHA VIREN RAJ ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 809/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2012-13\Nasha Viren Raj\Nvs\Nincome Tax Officer, Ward -\N34(1)(1), Mumbai\Nplot No. 7, Xczar Building\Nflat No. 402, N.S. Road\N1, Azad Nagar Society\Njuhu Scheme\Nvilleparle (West)\Nmumbai - 400056\N[Pan: Aadpr9260J]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nप्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent)\Nassessee By:\Nshri Rajesh Shah, A/R\Nrevenue By :\Nshri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:\N: 18/03/2025\N: 20/03/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated\N30/10/2024 By Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter “The Ld. Cit(A)"], Pertaining\Nto Ay 2012-13.\N1.

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: \nShri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s no failure\nto disclose all material facts as the Respondent No.1 had specifically sought details as\nregard the relevant expenditure and which were furnished. He relied upon the decision of\nthe Apex Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, to contend\nthat the duty of the assessee was to place on record all the primary facts and drawing of\ninference from the primary facts is upto the Assessing Officer. However, this issue need\nnot be gone into in depth any further, as the Petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first\nground mentioned above.\n12. In the circumstances, the Petitio…

GRACEUNITED DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2049/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vijay, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Raj Agarwal 4.12 I find that various courts have settled that the AO cannot reopen concluded assessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the materials already with him. In the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the drafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant. This the officer did not do It…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…et aside." 5.27 I find that various courts have settled that the AO cannot reopen concluded assessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the materials already with him. In the case of Germini Leather Stores ν. ΙΤΟ [1975] 100 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the drafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant. This the officer did not do.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…de.\"\n\n5.27 I find that various courts have settled that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind\non the materials already with him. In the case of Germini Leather Stores ν. ΙΤΟ\n[1975] 100 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:\n\n\"After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the\ndrafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper\ninference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as\npart of the total income of the appellant. This the officer did no…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…side.\"\n5.27 I find that various courts have settled that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind\non the materials already with him. In the case of Germini Leather Stores ν. ΙΤΟ\n[1975] 100 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:\n\"After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the\ndrafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper\ninference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as\npart of the total income of the appellant. This the officer did not…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

…ere change of opinion by the income- tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern News- paper Society v. CIT [1979] 12 CTR (SC) 190 : (1979)119 ITR 996 ; Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] CTR (SC) 127 : (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 154 CTR (Del) 355 : (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), etc. ITA 514/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 23 21. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, Deputy CIT v. ONGC [1999] 70 ITD 468 (Delhi) it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not…

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…which the assessee Ashok Sharma should not be held liable for non-disclosure on the similar footing as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd's case (supra) and followed in the New Delhi Television Limited Case (supra). [C.] In Gemini Leather Stores Vs ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) (paper book pg. no. 179- 180), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below: “It was plainly a case of over-sight, and it cannot be said that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The IT…

ECGC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e is no requirement to give further assistance by way of disclosure. It is the ld. AO who has to decide all the factual inferences or the legal inferences. This view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Store vs. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme 8 M/s. ECGC Limited Court has held that in every assessment proceeding the assessing authority will, for the purpose of computing or determining the proper tax due from an assessee, require to know all the facts which help him in coming to the correct conclusion. From the primary facts in his possession, whether on disc…

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMALFI REALTY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 888/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Chandran (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)

…for re-opening particularly when this aspect had already been examined in the scrutiny assessment. On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather 5 Amalfi Realty Pvt. Ltd. Stores vs. ITO [100 ITR 1] and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Suminter Organic and Fair Trade Cotton Ginning Mill (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [150 taxmann.com 232] and Vibrant Securities Private Limited vs. ITO and Ors. in Writ Petition No.3307 of 2022 decided on 23.02.2023. It is submitted that Rule 11UA(2)(a) of IT Rules 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) gives an option to the assess…

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

…that considering the decision of the Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalappa, Forest Contractor in IT Reference Case No. 112 of 1982, where the Hon. Court held that: As held by Supreme Court in the case of Genuine Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, where the assess has disclosed primary facts relating to transactions, it is for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw a proper inference as to whether the income returned is correct or not. If he does not make an enquiry, it is a case of oversight and it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason…

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Gautam, DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…Ltd v. Dy.CIT & Ors (2009)323 ITR 323 (Bom HC), CIT v. Arvind Remedies Ltd (2015) 93 CCH 121 (Mad H.C), CIT v. Page 3 of 4 ITA No 380 of 2019 COm Vault Systems India P Ltd Schwing Stetter India P Ltd (2015)93 CCH 112 (Mad H.C), Gemeni Leather Stores (1975) 100 ITR 1 (S.C), Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1961) 41 ITR 191 (S.C), Garden Silk Mills Ltd v. Dy.CIT (1997) 092 Taxman 022, Lokendra Singh v. Income Tax Officer (1981) 5 Taxman 74 (M.P), CIT vs. Madanlal Sohanlal (1981) 7 Taxman 303 (Cal.), Aayojan Developers v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 10 Taxmann.com 226 (Guj).to quash the impugned reopening for the foregoin…

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

…ction 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on th…

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

…ction 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2