GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 9Supreme Court of India2003#15474 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

Inducto Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Inducto Steel Limited The Acit-3(2)(1) 156, Maker Chambers Vi Aayakar Bhavan 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. Pan : Aaach1045E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Reepal Tralshawala
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…be deleted. 9. Ld DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 10. Heard both sides. The first issue to be adjudicated is whether the reopening of the case under section 148 of the Act is correct in law. The law laid down in the case of GKN Driveshaft Ltd. 259 ITR 9 (SC) by Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that the reasons for reopening should be communicated within reasonable time. In this case, from the assessment order, para 3 to 5, it is observed that reasons for reopening were recorded duly and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.3.2019 and served on appellant through ITBA. In pursuance of this…

DCIT(Exemp)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Development Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5954/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 11(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai 608, 6th Floor, MTNL Building, Cumbulla Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026.Maharashtra …………. Appellant Vs Tata Education and Development Trust Bombay house, Ground floor, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. Maharashtra [PAN:AABTT5628C] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department : Shri Biswanath Das For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri. Atual T. Suraiya Date Conclusion of hearing : 17.02.2…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3

…ss account. The appellant has been able to offer an explanation which is satisfactory. Further, as submitted by the ld. AR, taxes have also been paid on the admitted income. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal 259 ITR 9 (SC) is relevant in such a situation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that penalty is not leviable if the assessee files revised return offering additional income. In that case, the assessee had originally filed returns showing meagre income. When, after search action u/s.132, a notice u/s.148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing high…

M/S.Kavnur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. Theito, Tirur

ITA 293/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…is the classification of the Assessee as a Co-operative Bank when there is a certification to the effect that the Assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Therefore, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 259 ITR 9, the entire proceedings are vitiated and is liable to be quashed and set aside. E. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is therefore humbly prayed that the Honorable Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.” 6.1 The learned AR relied on the grounds raised. The learned Departmental Representative, o…

M/S.Kavanur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. The ITO, Tirur

ITA 292/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…is the classification of the Assessee as a Co-operative Bank when there is a certification to the effect that the Assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Therefore, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 259 ITR 9, the entire proceedings are vitiated and is liable to be quashed and set aside. E. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is therefore humbly prayed that the Honorable Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.” 6.1 The learned AR relied on the grounds raised. The learned Departmental Representative, o…

Sanket M Dharod, Hyd, R.R.Dist vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 873/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2004-05 Sanket M. Dharod, Hyderabad Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abkpd5807 B

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Gopala Krishna
Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250

…AO has not disposed of the objections filed by the assessee to the reopening of assessment, prior to completion of assessment or even thereafter. Thus, the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 259 ITR 9, has not been followed. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material 5.1 Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC) held that non-disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reasons towards the end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with the objections result…

GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 9) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax