ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

325 ITR 471High Court2010#3473 most cited

What is ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Reopening an assessment or initiating revisionary proceedings under section 263 is invalid if based solely on a change of opinion without any new material or tangible evidence.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd v ACIT · 325 ITR 471 · reassessment · change of opinion · section 263 · section 148 · no new material · tangible material · unsustainable reopening

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 4(2)section 32ainitial assessment yearfull and true disclosuremere change of opinionmaterial facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatorlive linksection 80ibeligible businesschange of opinion

Judgments citing ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.10(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2344/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income D-2, Medley Houses, 16Th Road, Tax-10(2)(2), Vs. Midc Area, Andheri (East), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 Pan – Aaacm2764J (Appellant) (Respondent) Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, D-2, Medley House, 16Th Road, Central Circle – 44, Vs. Midc Area, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai Pan – Aaacm2764J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. H.N. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…annot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under s. 148”. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (supra), had held as under: ITA No.2344/Mum/2018 & 17 ITA No.1212/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT-10(2)(2) 23. Though the power to reopen an assessment within a period of four years of the expiry of the relevant assessmen…

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

…236(Guj) 9. Jal Hotels Co. Ltd, 184 Taxman 1 (Del) 10. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd, 296 ITR 342(Del) 11. Goetze Ltd. 321 ITR 431 (Del) 12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 15. Siemens Information. 295 ITR 333 (Bom) 16. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 200(Mad) 17. Bhavesh Developers, 229 CTR 160(Bom) 18. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. JCIT: 245 ITR 645 (Cal) 19. Mercury Travels Ltd.. Vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 20. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. ACIT: 322 ITR 369 (Cal) 21. Aventis Pharma Limited, 323 ITR 570(…

Bell Granito Ceramics Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2203/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nge of opinion of an officer not valid. (4) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), in this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. (5) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on the mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable. 9.1 Based on the ratio of judgment decided in the aforesaid cases, it follows that no valid proceeding u/s.147 could be init…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…0 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) "…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…0 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) "…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…0 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) "…

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2017[2009-140]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-140

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…annot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under s. 148‖. Further, the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), ITA NO(s). 1815/Mum/2017 & 1794/Mum/2017 15 Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT-14(2)(1) & DCIT-14(2)(1) Vs. Kotak Mahindra asset Management Co. Ltd. relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (supra), had therein held as under: 23. Though the power to reopen an assessment within…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1794/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…annot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under s. 148‖. Further, the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), ITA NO(s). 1815/Mum/2017 & 1794/Mum/2017 15 Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT-14(2)(1) & DCIT-14(2)(1) Vs. Kotak Mahindra asset Management Co. Ltd. relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (supra), had therein held as under: 23. Though the power to reopen an assessment within…

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

…see relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom), Asteriods Trading Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 1990 (Bom), ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 325 ITR 471 (Bom). 9. When this was pointed to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative that was the failure on the part of the assessee, he only referred to the re-assessment order and that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings could not submit the confirmations of the brokers whoever refunded the excess brokerage charge to them. Henc…

Ananda Paul, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

…change of opinion of officer not valid. (4) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), in this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. (5) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable. Based on the ratio of judgment decided in the aforesaid cases, it follows that no valid proceeding u/s.147 could be initiated eve…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd., Faridabad

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6719/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd, Vs. Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 113-114A, New Cgo Complex, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aabcp0441Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Kr. Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17

…e of appellant is squarely covered by judgment of P&H High Court In Case Of Dullichand Singhania Vs ACIT 269 ITR 192 (P&H). 22. Reliance is also placed on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs ACIT reported in 325 ITR 471 wherein the AO intended to reopen the concluded assessment on the basis of the documents furnished at the assessment stage. The documents were furnished along with elaborate explanation upon specific inquiry raised upon by the AO. The assessment order although Hiri the original order, the AO intended to reopen the assessment. The Hon'ble Court in…

G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir-Xx, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…change of opinion of officer not valid. (4) Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom), in this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. (5) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom), in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable. 10.1 Based on the ratio of judgment decided in the aforesaid cases, it follows that no valid proceeding u/s.147 could be initiate…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…alid. M/s. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. • Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) In this case, the hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) In the said case, the hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable. • Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. Astt. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) (577). • Bhavesh Developers vs. A.O. (2010) 224 CTR 160 (Bom). 2.…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…alid. M/s. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. • Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) In this case, the hon'ble High Court observed that mere change of opinion of A.O. not ground for reassessment. • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom) In the said case, the hon'ble Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment on the same ground in the absence of any tangible material was based on mere change of opinion and therefore is not sustainable. • Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. Astt. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) (577). • Bhavesh Developers vs. A.O. (2010) 224 CTR 160 (Bom). 2.…