How many judgments cite Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

107 judgments on BharatTax cite Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (301 ITR 407), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 69C.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

301 ITR 407High Court2008#1008 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 366,470 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 148 Section 147 Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 69C Section 133A Section 139

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosure first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment inadequate enquiry mere change of opinion section 114 kelvinator fresh tangible material beyond four years income escaping assessment lack of enquiry change of opinion

Judgments citing Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. The relevant extract of the observation made by f the Hon’ble High Court on this issue are reproduced below: “7…………… This issue is no longer res Integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete all assessments assi…

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…position. The relevant extract of paragraph 7 of the judgement is reproduced below for your reference M/s. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore Page 8 of 24 “This issue is no longer res integra as this court in Idea Cellular Ltd v. Deputy CIT reported in [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) has held that if during the assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if the assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues.” 3.8 According to Ld. A.R. the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has simpl…

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri M. Balaganesh (AM) & Mrs. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 832/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Principal Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of 301, 3rd Floor, A-Wing Income Tax-7 Mafatlal Chamber Room No. 125 Marathon Futurex I.T. 1st Floor, Aayakar Park, Lower Parel East Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 013. Road Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AACCL1246N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri Salil Mishra Date of Hearing 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh (AM) :- This appeal is…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97

Section 143(3)

…there is no discussion in order, it cannot be inferred that AO has not passed a speaking order. See following decisions: Marico Ltd. v. ACIT (111 taxmann.com 253) (Bom HC) ACIT v. Marico Ltd. (117 taxmann.com 244) (SLP Dismissed) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom HC) (PB 7, Page 1 GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom HC) (PB 7, 1393) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. ACIT (367 ITR 405) (Bom HC) CIT v. Prima Paper And Engineering Industry (364 ITR 222) (Bom 10. The Appellant had relied on decisions like M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., Special Bench in Reliance Industries (supra), Bombay High Court…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1276/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, Asstt. CIT, 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) had occasion to deal with the identical situations, wherein, after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) and in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 367 ITR 405 (Bom.) held as follows :- “According to the Revenue, it could only be when 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 t…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1275/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnad Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 954/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res Integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete all- assessments ass…

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2093/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1312/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1311/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…plex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. 4. 305 CTR 486 (Bom) CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. 5. 387 ITR 691 (Bom) CIT v Gera Development P Ltd. 6. 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT v Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 7. 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT 8. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) CIT v Development Credit Bank Ltd 7. The ld. AR had further submitted that the PCIT for the purposes of justifying the order under section 263 of the Act relied upon the Explanation- (2) to section 263 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the Explanation-(2) though was introduced w.e.f. 01.06…

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank), Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment 7 Bank of Baroda proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well- nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete…

Pinebridge Investments Capital India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Sahu, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…see has not earned any exempt income during the year by placing reliance on various decisions as under: 1. CIT vs Chettinad Logiistics 9P) ltd (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) 2. Sunbeam Auto Ltd vs CIT (2011)(332 ITR 167) 3. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DOT (2008) 301 ITR 407 4. Max India Ltd vs CIT (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom HC) The submissions of the Assessee did niot find favour with the ld PCIT and he set aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2017. 3 M/s. PineBridge Investments Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted before the bench that since the assesse was not having any exempt…

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not 30 M/s.Pooja Marketing mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to compl…

Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6481/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that if during Assessment 8 M/s. Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd., proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assess…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…ted in the assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer called for interference and revision”. e) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom). [Idea Cellular Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Followed] Held “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”. f) CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd - [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) Tribunal held that “once inquiry was made, a m…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3425/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 71

…y the ld. AR on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom) wherein the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 301 ITR 407 (Bom) by holding that if during the assessment proceedings, queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if the assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issue. Moreover, it is now very well settled that for invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s…

Shri Sardar (Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 308/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/D.R

Section 148

…It is settled position in law that the satisfaction on the basis of relevant material about escapement of income, ought to be 10 . AY. 2008-09 that of A.O. alone & none-else. [CIT v. Sohandevi Sadani [2007] 196 Taxation 707 (Raj.)], Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT 301 ITR 407(Bom.), Austin Engg. Co. Ltd. v.JCIT 207 Taxation 35(Guj.), Manjusha Estate (P.) Ltd. 214 Taxation 194 (Guj.), Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Delhi)] (b) On going through prescribed Performa for proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, it is seen that against col.no. 8b, the remark offered by the A.O, states as 'assessed u/s 14-3(3) on 10/11/…

M/S. Ganpat Pannalal, Harda vs. ITO-1 Harda, Harda

Appeal is allowed

ITA 756/IND/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80Section 80I

…[ITA No.756/Ind/2019] [Ganpat Pannalal ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Ganpat Pannalal ITO-1 Main Road, Harda Harda बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AAFFM4284P Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 18.05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 05.04.2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following…