(i) M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CIT

297 ITR 119High Court2008#5250 most cited

What is (i) M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Reopening an assessment is invalid if it is based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, especially if the issue was not previously examined. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (CIT(A)) can quash such reopening based on established case law.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd v CIT · 297 ITR 119 · change of opinion · reopening assessment · Assessing Officer · CIT(A) · Kelvinator of India · Rajesh Jhaveri

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 4(2)section 32ainitial assessment yearfull and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatormere change of opinionlive linksection 80ibeligible businessincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing (i) M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CIT

Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 26/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Tower Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Cit Range 8(3), (Formerly Watson Wyatt India Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road, Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai- 400020. Bldg. No. 5, 1St Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg2955K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M.SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. O.P.Meena
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43A

…Act. Therefore, it amounts to mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion which does not provide jurisdiction to the AO to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 9. In M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that when the question as to whether for determining total income under section 115JB of the Act, the book profit has to be increased by the amount of provision for deferred taxation made by the assessee in P&L account, was specifically raised by the AO at the time of assessment proceedings and the A…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…anji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) - ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat AIi Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC) - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Others (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) - CIT v. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) - M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) - Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v.. ITO [2009] 318 ITR 295 (Del.) - CIT v. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 200 (Mad.) - Caetini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275 (Bom.) - Pan Drugs Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 316 ITR (AT) 72 (Ahm.) The assessee company submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Lt…