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

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 660/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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…

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

…ion 263 cannot be exercised. In support of his legal submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: 1. CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (Bombay High Court). 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom. High Court) 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom. High Court). 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom. High Court). 7. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 ( Del. High Court). 8. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2690 & 2691) (Mum ITAT). 9. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport…

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

ITA 2277/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S. Dehiya-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एफ मुंबई एफ एफ ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एफ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “F”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2277/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" DCIT-14(…

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 495/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…oceedings in respect of an issue, then the provisions of Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act does not apply to the said issue. In support this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (301 ITR 407). In view of the facts narrated above, the Ld A.R submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in placing reliance on Explanation-1 to Section 147. The Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, after having examined the issue in detailed manner in the original assessment proceedings, have reopened the assessment only for the reason…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…and CIT & Anr. Vs Foramar France 264 ITR 566 (SC). It was also contended that the notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of audit objection. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxmann 67 (Bom.), IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 293 ITR 271 (Bom.). Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book. On the other hand, Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, Ld. CIT-DR,…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…ew of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. v.Max India Limited [295 ITR 287] and Malbar Industries Co Ltd. v. CIT [243 ITR 83]. 33. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT & 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. In the present case, not only various details and documents have been called for by AO on all the three issue…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

Standard Chartered Masterbrand Licesing Ltd, Palghar vs. CIT (It)-4, Mumbai

ITA 3325/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchun Kaushal/Dhanesh Bafna/Aliasger Rampurawala/Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-DR

Section 115Section 115ASection 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 285A

…s to which documents were produced before him and why did he accept the same.Even after making inquiry,he can decide not mention about such documents and evidences.Therefore,it cannot be presumed that he had not any inquiry.In the matter of Idea Cellular Ltd.(301 ITR 407),the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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,that it would be well nigh impossible for an AO to complete all assessments assigne…

M/S Ab (Wines) Stores, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…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 assig…

Dci India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T. A.No. 126 /Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Dic India Ltd. Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- [Pan :Aabbcc0703C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant Sri D. S. Damle, Fca Sri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2017

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 92E

…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 30 I.T.A.No. 126 /Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/s. DIC India Ltd. 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 as…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…Ltd. (ITA No.5422/M/2013) (ITAT Mumbai) iii) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom.) iv) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom.) v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings V. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom.) vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) vii) IPCA Laboratories Ltd v DCIT (251 ITR 416) (Bom.) viii) Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161)(Bom) ix) ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203)(Bom.) x) CIT v Daimler Chrysler India (P.) Ltd. (33 taxmann. com 419)(Bom) xi) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCII (346 ITR 355)(Bom.) 7 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) I…

Sri. H. Nagaraja, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 613/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)

…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 assi…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd ( Earlier Known As Tata Engg & Locomotive Co.Ltd), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised in Cross objections is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 3600/MUM/2011[20001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…n the following decision for his relience. i. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom). ii. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom). iii. Kimpas Trenton Fittings v. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom). iv. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407)(Bom). v. IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (251 ITR 4160(Bom.). vi. Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). vii. ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203) (Bom.) viii. NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 355) (Bom). ix. Bhavesh Developers v. AO (188 Taxman 123)(Bom.) x. Tata International Ltd. v DCIT (22 taxmann.com 18) (ITAT Mumbai). x…

Priyanka Regency Builders & Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2944/ Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year -2009-10) बिाम/ Priyanka Regency Builders & Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Room No.574, 5Th Floor, Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Priyanka Complex, Shop No.12- Aayakar Bhavan, A, Plot No.4, Sector-10, M K Road, Sanpada, Mumbai-400020 Navi Mumbai-400705 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit

Section 143(3)Section 263

…lf indicate non application of mind to 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. 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. 9. Moreover, from the nature of expenditure as explained by the petitioner to the Assessing Officer during the asses…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…re incurred on this commission payment. It is only after perusing the information filed, he chose not to make any addition on this item. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT (301 ITR 407) it cannot be said that AO had not applied his mind on this issue, wherein it was held as follows: “9. 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 a…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 115WSection 115w

…ny tangible material and is not sufficient to assume jurisdiction to issue 6 Dy. CIT, Vs. M/s. Tata Steel International (India) ltd. the impugned notice. In fact, our court in the matter of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax reported in 301 ITR 407 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 al/ the material before him. Further, as observed by the full Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Unitop Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3511/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(3) Unitop Chemicals P. Ltd. R.No.217, बनाम/ Unitop House C Wing, East Aayakar Bhavan, West Industrial Centre, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Road, Adheri Mumbai -400020 (E) Mumbai 400072 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacu1406F Revenue By Shri Santosh Mankoskar (Dr) Respondent By Shri Haridas Bhat (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…absence of allegation of the AO in the ‘Reasons’ about failure of the assessee in disclosure of material facts, reopening shall be invalid. Immediate reference can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 and ICICI Bank Ltd. vs DCIT 268 ITR 203 (Bom). Thus, action of Ld CIT(A) in quashing the reopening is in accordance with law and facts. 3.3. It is further noted by us that in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2007 complete facts were disclosed by the assessee, as would be evident from the perusal of computation of incom…