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

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…e same are not dealt with in the order and such a course of action is permissible as supported by the ratio laid down in the following three decisions by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 1. CIT vs. Capital India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 2. Idea Celluar Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 301 ITR 407 3. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.- HC) 13. The Ld. A.R. submitted that under these circumstances it could not be said that there was no enquiry made or one of the possible view was not taken by the AO. On the issue of royalty being a capital account or revenue account, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. PCIT has not raised t…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…nt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay Assessment Years: 2005-06 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio P. Ltd. 372 ITR (Bom), Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT 301 ITR 407 and Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 195, and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, ITA No. 2551 and 2129/Mum/2012 for the AY 2006-07 submitted that since the action of the AO of reopening the assessment is bad in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have set aside the order passed by the AO. The Ld. counsel acco…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

Syscom Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-3, Mumbai

ITA 1608/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…0th Dec., 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. vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 288 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 179 : (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 AO has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well nigh impossible for an AO to complete all assessments assigned to him under s. 143(3) of…

Anand Lilaram Raisinghani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent specified in the order

ITA 3385/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 43B

…passed by Ld.AO with due application of mind. Similar are the facts in the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Small Wonder Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013 dated 24/02/2017). The case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. V/s DCIT (301 ITR 407) is concerned with reassessment u/s 147 and do not deal with revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Therefore, the case laws being cited by Ld. AR are clearly not applicable to the factual matrix. 5.1 Having said so, we find the final directions of Ld. Pr.CIT to be erroneous to some extent. It is noted that there was blanket set-aside of the quantum as…

M/S. Chandukaka Saraf and Co, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax - (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 759/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 131Section 132Section 263

…incurred on account of repairs & maintenance out of Rs.2.94 crores was capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. The case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom) was also referred to, wherein it was held that if enquiries raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, it cannot be then lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Further reliance was placed by the Ld. AR of the assessee in another decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. N…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

…e submitted that the reopening has been done merely on the basis of change of opinion which is not valid in the eyes of law. The learned AR in support of his contention referred to various case laws as detailed under: i- Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s DCIT (BOM HC) (301 ITR 407) ii- Asian Paints Ltd. v/s DCIT (BOM HC) (308 ITR 195) iii- CIT v/s Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (BOM HC) (372 ITR 762) iv- State Bank of India (Mumbai) v/s ACIT writ petition no. 271 of 2018 10.4 The learned AR also claimed that the tribunal in the own case of the assessee involving identical facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Ahmednagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1272/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Bafna Path, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, Pin-413709. Pan : Aavpb3556D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 54F

…es was capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by AO while passing impugned order. The Hon’ble High Court further considered the decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 ( Bom.) and held that if query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, mere fact that it is not dealt with in AO would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.” 11. That further, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra.) has held that “if there is an enqu…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR)

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT-14(2)(1) M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4th Floor, (Successor to M/s. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. CST Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 PAN – AAGCS6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR) Respondent by : Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR) Date of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2019 ORDERUNDE…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…T v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.) [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 Taxman 641/55 taxmann.xom 514 (Bom.) decided on February 3, 2015, wherein also Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 27 in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has taken a similar view and said as under (page 307 of 372 ITR): "......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." 20. In case of Mahendra Kumar Bansal (supra), th…

Allauddin Noormohamed Kadiwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaallauddin Noormohamed Vs. Ito -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta Chsl Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 Pan/Gir No.Aabpk6147K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 54F

…e learned Pr.CIT is liable to be quashed. The learned A.R. also relied upon the decisions in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303, CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 303 Bom), Idea Cellular Ltd Vs DCIT (301 ITR 407 Bom), Real Traders Vs PCIT (2929/Mum/2016), Simandhar Association Vs PCIT (ITA No789/Mum/2016) and Union of India Vs Cadell Weaving Mills Co. Ltd & other( 273 ITR 3 SC). 10. On the other hand, the learned D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of the learned Pr. CIT. The learned D.R. further submitted that the AO has not examined if the long te…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…be a mere change of opinion in the absence of any tangible material and is not sufficient to assume jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. In fact, our court in the matter of Idea Cellular Ltd v. Dy. CIT ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that once all the material with regard to particular issue is before the Assessing Officer and he chooses not to deal with the same, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind to all the material before him. Further, as observed by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of C.I.T. v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002…

Sajid Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. CIT 11, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1411/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…uld not by itself indicate non application of mind to this issue by the AO 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. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407" 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. 4 9. Moreover, from the nature of expenditure as explained by the petitioner to the AO during the assessment procee…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…ade an enquiry on claim u/s. 80 IA wrt Jetty and did not demonstrate application of mind; more so when the AO has disallowed claim u/s. 80 IA wrt Rail system. Therefore, reliance on this decision is misplaced. 3. IDEA CELLULAR LTD Vs. Dy. CIT AND OTHERSI20081 301 ITR 407 (Bom) - pp 16 of PB The facts of this case pertains to reassessment after 4 years and there being no failure to disclose material facts, explanation to section 147 was not applicable. Please see para 9 on page 23 of PB. It was held that since the AO had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…ollowing decision: (i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT (268 ITR 332) (Bombay High Court), (ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (346 ITR 361) (Bombay High Court), (iii) Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183(Bombay High Court),Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT (301 ITR 407 (Bombay High Court) (iv) Mumbai Tribunal in Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV vs. ADIT in ITA No. 495 & 496/Mum/2016 dated 28.02.2018. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the decision relied by ld. DR are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld AR for the assessee while distinguishing the decisions relied…

Vivek Vijay Nair, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the ground number one and two of the appeals are

ITA 4278/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Vivek Vijay Nair Acit-2(2), C/O Pangea Shipping Agencies It Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan: Adfpn8491C Appellant Respondent Smt. Sindhu Vijay Nair Acit-2(2), C/O Pangea Shipping Agencies It Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan: Aabpn7907N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Respondent By : Shri V. Justin (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Vivek Vijay Nair ACIT-2(2), C/o Pangea Shipping Agencies IT Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. PAN: ADFPN8491C Appellant Respondent Smt. Sindhu Vijay Nair ACIT-2(2), C/o Pangea Shipping Agencies IT Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. PAN: AABPN7907N Appellant Respon…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…ilure on the part of the assessee to disclose ell facts, the reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years could not be sustained. 3.15] Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd, -vs.- DCIT & Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom} wherein the AO reopened the assessment after expiry of four years on the contention that I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 amalgamation reserve credited directly to Reserves and Surplus Account has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that, since the petitioner has mentioned the accounting entry for amalgamation reserve in the…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); Moil Limited v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai; Jeewanlal v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal); M/s Superfine Agro Industries v. ITO [ITA No. 203 (Asr)/ 2014] by ITAT Amritsar; J. Thomas & Co. Private Limit…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…rder based on change in opinion is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through the reasons recorded for re-opening of the original assessment order pas…