Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

301 ITR 407High Court2008#1023 most cited

What is Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is considered to have applied their mind and formed an opinion on an issue if the assessee fully disclosed all material facts and responded to queries during the original assessment, even without explicit discussion in the assessment order. Reopening an assessment beyond four years on such an issue without new tangible material constitutes a mere change of opinion and is impermissible under Section 147.

107

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · 301 ITR 407 · change of opinion · full and true disclosure · reassessment beyond four years · income escaping assessment · material facts · inadequate enquiry · Section 143(3) · Kelvinator.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 68Section 142(1)Section 69CSection 133ASection 139

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentinadequate enquirymere change of opinionsection 114kelvinatorfresh tangible materialbeyond four yearsincome escaping assessmentlack of enquirychange of opinion

Judgments citing Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…iance to host of judgments, detailed as under: “Proposition1-1 : For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of new tangible material, reassessment is bad-in-law CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay HC) CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay HC) Proposition 2: For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of stating "exaet" failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose truly and fully all material facts relevant for assessment, reassessment is bad-in-law Spice Life Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta Di…

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…iance to host of judgments, detailed as under: “Proposition1-1 : For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of new tangible material, reassessment is bad-in-law CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay HC) CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay HC) Proposition 2: For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of stating "exaet" failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose truly and fully all material facts relevant for assessment, reassessment is bad-in-law Spice Life Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta Di…

VAMA INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…. As there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose ell facts, the reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years could not be sustained.\n6.2 Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom) wherein the AO reopened the assessment after expiry of four years on the contention\nPage | 8\nITA No. 5456/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13\nVama International\nthat amalgamation reserve credited directly to Reserves and Surplus Account has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that, since the petitioner had mentioned the accoun…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…ITA No. 1035/Del/ 2025 & CO 118/Del/2025 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Kumar THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E”NEWDELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2nd II-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor CGO Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 PAN No. AEAPK1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal adv Date of hearing 27.10.2025 Date…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…36, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 course of order. In this regard, the following observations of a Division Bench of this court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) have relevance (page 414): "It was also sought to be contended that since the Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not be said that there was any change of opinion in this case. In our view, once all the material was before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…36, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 course of order. In this regard, the following observations of a Division Bench of this court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) have relevance (page 414): "It was also sought to be contended that since the Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not be said that there was any change of opinion in this case. In our view, once all the material was before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…36, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 course of order. In this regard, the following observations of a Division Bench of this court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) have relevance (page 414): "It was also sought to be contended that since the Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not be said that there was any change of opinion in this case. In our view, once all the material was before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…36, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 course of order. In this regard, the following observations of a Division Bench of this court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) have relevance (page 414): "It was also sought to be contended that since the Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not be said that there was any change of opinion in this case. In our view, once all the material was before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to…

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…hen the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to to the deduction/ claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be contended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while passin…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1640/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1450/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1449/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1448/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1411/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1410/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

UMBRELLA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1409/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hat in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407, where the Hon'ble High Court on identical facts has held that when the assessee has placed all the materials before the ld. AO then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind in which case reassessment after 4 years is held to be unjustifiable. 11. From the aforementioned decisions along with various other judicial precedents cited…

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…o this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent- assessee's response to it. In fact this Court in the case of “Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., [(2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom.)]” has held that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. 9. Moreover, from the nature of expenditure as explained by the petitioner to the Assessing Officer during t…

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…o this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent- assessee's response to it. In fact this Court in the case of “Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., [(2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom.)]” has held that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.” 16. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Angre Port Private Ltd. vs. PCIT vide ITA No…

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the assessment\norder contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be\nsaid that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to\nthe claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly\nnegatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The\nCourt held that once all the material was placed before the\nAssessing Officer and he chose not to refer to to the deduction/claim\nwhich was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be\ncontended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while\np…

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2838/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Industrial Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Development Corporation, (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, 400 093 Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaacm3560C Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

…on of law by the AO would make the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10 MIDC 7. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in NYK Line (India) Ltd v. DCIT [2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom) and Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT[2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that when a question is raised by AO during the course of original assessment and adequately responded to by the assessee, even when the aspect is not dealt with in the assessment order, it would be deemed that the AO has expressed an opinion on the issue raised. Therefore, jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act could not have been exerc…

Showing 1–20 of 107 · Page 1 of 6