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.

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 1)

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

…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…

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

…ously 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] 18 CO No. 44/Mum/2019 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…

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

…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 and Eastern News- paper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 ; Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), etc. 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 fee for techni- cal services. Although we are of the opinion that…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3569/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Ward 1(1), N-86, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadca3663M Co No.80/Del/2016 (Ita No.3569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, N-86, Connaught Place, Ward 1(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadca3663M

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Samujh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITO, Vs A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Ward 1(1), N-86, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AADCA3663M CO No.80/Del/2016 (ITA No.3569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, N-86, Connaught Place, Ward 1(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AADCA3663M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Ram Samujh, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement…

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

…hristian's case, the impugned notice under section 147/148 would obviously be on 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…

M/S Paramount Properties & Estate Developments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ecord. This will amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. In support of the aforesaid stand, reliance may be placed on the following legal precedents: • Gemini Leather Stores Vs ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) It was held in this case that 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.…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Mani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3759/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mani Exports 16(3), Mumbai, Matru Mandir, 1903 Panchratna Opera House, Vs. 2Nd Floor, R. No. 206 Tardeoi Mumbai-400 004 Rd, Mumbai-07 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaefm2320F Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr Assessee By .. Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 880H

…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…

M/S. Novartis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…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…

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1282/MUM/2006[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…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…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…puty CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi). 5. Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. vs. CIT AND ANOTHER [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) 29. WEL INTERTRADE P. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) 30. NESTLE INDIA LTD. vs.DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 334 (Del) 31. CIT (LTU) vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2016] 382 ITR 574 (Bom) 32. MUNJALSHOWA LTD. vs.DCIT AND ANOTHER [2016] 382 ITR 555 (Del) 33…

Smt Santi Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-37(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 797/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 and Eastern News- paper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 ; Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), etc. 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 fee for techni- cal services. Although we are of the opinion that…

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & Shri Harish Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 and Eastern News- paper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 ; Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), etc. 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 fee for techni- cal services. Although we are of the opinion that…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Cheviot Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 and Eastern News- paper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 ; Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), etc. 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 fee for techni- cal services. Although we are of the opinion that…

Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO