Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd.

442 ITR 507Supreme Court of India2022#5354 most cited

What is Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. authority for?

This case is cited as authority for the principle that income must be sustained in the year of receipt.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. · 442 ITR 507 · 139 Taxmann.com 317 · 287 Taxmann 385 · SC · income in the year of receipt · assessment procedure

Also reported as

139 Taxmann.com 317287 Taxmann 385

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 194-1A

Issues it is cited on

shell companyfirst proviso to section 147full and true disclosuresource of sourcefresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 246section 250(4)section 41tangible materialincome escaping assessmentadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4117/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4116/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4108/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIA vs. M/S AJAY REALCON PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3560/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3558/DEL/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE RESIDENCY PVT. LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3493/DEL/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. MAXCAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2590/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4th floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AANCM1997Q Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, ARs Revenue by : Praveen Kishore, DR Date of hearing: 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…is illegal, void abinitio and liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs., Kayathwal Estate (P) Ltd., 442 ITR 507 (SC). 11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further, referring to the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted income being un-reconciled salary 14 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 payments from the bank account held in the name of the Company at Vienna submitted that, the reference to the forensic audit report for m…

BYRRAJU RAMALINGA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…is illegal, void abinitio and liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs., Kayathwal Estate (P) Ltd., 442 ITR 507 (SC). 11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further, referring to the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted income being un-reconciled salary 14 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 payments from the bank account held in the name of the Company at Vienna submitted that, the reference to the forensic audit report for m…

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…rs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21).In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others i. Income-tax Officer vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 385 (SC)/[2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC)[14-02-2022]. [Refer Page No. 414-419 of Case Law PB] ii. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [Refer Page No. 420-422 of Case Law PB] iii. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Dharmes…

DCIT-27(2), MUMBAI, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PYRAMID INFRATECH CO., GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 1426/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-27(2), Mumbai Vs. Pyramid Infratech Room No.419, 4th Floor, Co. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Plot No.19, Sector-8, Station Complex, Vashi, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400703 Navi Mumbai-400701 PAN: AAMFP8951D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent by Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The pres…

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

…ssessment,\ntherefore, such re-assessment notice which is issued beyond a period of four years\nfrom the relevant assessment year, is bad in law. For the above proposition, he\nrelied on the following decisions:\ni)\nITO vs. Kayathwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 507 (SC)\nii)\nVibrant Securities Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO (2023) 455 ITR 58 (Bom)\niii) Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 228 (Bom)\n18\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his fourth plank of argument submitted\nthat the re-assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is invalid since the\…

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

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of assessment, therefore, such re-assessment notice which is issued beyond a period of four years from the relevant assessment year, is bad in law. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Kayathwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 507 (SC) ii) Vibrant Securities Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO (2023) 455 ITR 58 (Bom) iii) Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 228 (Bom) 18 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his fourth plank of argument submitted that the re-assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is invalid since the same is…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth GS, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. Vastimal Bhim Raj Sancheti, Ward – 7(2)(2), #23 3rd Main Road, 2nd Cross, Bengaluru. Chamrajpet, Bengaluru – 560 019. PAN : AGZPS 6277 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Prashanth GS, AR. Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member Th…

THE PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 101/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…otice issued by the Ld. AO after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law and required to be quashed. For this the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Suprmee Court in the case of ITO Vs. Kayathwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. 442 ITR 507 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Court held as under : “ Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned Associates Solicitor General and in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly at the time of scrutiny assessment under s. 143(3), the AO had asked for the details regarding the unsecured loan taken by the assessee during the year under consi…

M/S. JET SPEED REALTORS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 63/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ied and that assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer beyond a period of 4 years is invalid and without jurisdiction. The ld AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard - i. ITO vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd [2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC) and [2022] 139 taxmann.com 316 (Guj.) ii. DCIT vs. Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd [2022] 447 ITR 370 (SC) and [2022] 145 taxmann.com 36 (Mad.) iii. Idea Cellular Ltd vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 7 ITAs 23,24 & 63/Mum/2022 Jet Speed Realtors iv. Hitech Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT WP(L) NO.6861 of 2022 (Bombay HC) v. JM Financia…

JET SPEED REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 32(1), MUMBAI

ITA 24/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ied and that assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer beyond a period of 4 years is invalid and without jurisdiction. The ld AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard - i. ITO vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd [2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC) and [2022] 139 taxmann.com 316 (Guj.) ii. DCIT vs. Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd [2022] 447 ITR 370 (SC) and [2022] 145 taxmann.com 36 (Mad.) iii. Idea Cellular Ltd vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 7 ITAs 23,24 & 63/Mum/2022 Jet Speed Realtors iv. Hitech Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT WP(L) NO.6861 of 2022 (Bombay HC) v. JM Financia…

JET SPEED REALTORS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 32 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 23/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ied and that assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer beyond a period of 4 years is invalid and without jurisdiction. The ld AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard - i. ITO vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd [2022] 442 ITR 507 (SC) and [2022] 139 taxmann.com 316 (Guj.) ii. DCIT vs. Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd [2022] 447 ITR 370 (SC) and [2022] 145 taxmann.com 36 (Mad.) iii. Idea Cellular Ltd vs. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 7 ITAs 23,24 & 63/Mum/2022 Jet Speed Realtors iv. Hitech Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT WP(L) NO.6861 of 2022 (Bombay HC) v. JM Financia…

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…was not disclosed fully and truly by the assessee so as ITA 183/Hyd/2020 to invoke the provision of section 148 beyond the period of four years. 11.2 Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Kayathwal Estate Pvt.Ltd reported in 442 ITR 507, he drew the attention of the Bench to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "1. Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG and in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly at the time of Scrutiny Assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer had asked for the details regarding the unsecured loan taken…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd. (442 ITR 507) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax