Income-Tax Officer v. Techspan India Private Limited and Another

404 ITR 10Supreme Court of India2018#2831 most cited

What is Income-Tax Officer v. Techspan India Private Limited and Another authority for?

A court should verify whether the original assessment order expressly or implicitly formed an opinion on the income alleged to have escaped assessment, before interfering with a proposed reopening based on a mere change of opinion. If the assessment order is non-speaking or cryptic, it may be difficult to attribute a change of opinion to the Assessing Officer.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Techspan India Private Limited · Techspan India SC 2018 · Section 147 reopening · Section 148 notice · change of opinion reassessment · non-speaking assessment order · cryptic assessment order · validity of reassessment · income escaping assessment · Kelvinator of India Ltd. · Section 143(3) assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 149Section 250

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 35ddtrue and full disclosuresection 143(l)(a)section 72asection 147(b)section 114(e)export oriented unitsection 245hfull and true disclosurekelvinatorsection 115jaa

Judgments citing Income-Tax Officer v. Techspan India Private Limited and Another

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…an 209/[2007] 295 ITR 333 (Bombay)/2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1292; NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 229/211 Taxman 185 (Mag.)/346 ITR 361 (Bombay)/2012 SCC OnLine Bom 195; ITO v. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361/255 Taxman 152/404 ITR 10 (SC)/(2018) 6 SCC 685; GKN Sinter Metals Ltd v ACIT [2015] [2015] 55 taxmann.com 438/232 Taxman 386/371 ITR 225 (Bombay) (Bombay) In the said case of Imperial Consultants (supra) Justice G.S. Kulkarni speaking for the Division Bench considering of reopening of assessment beyond the period of four years, observed thus:- Adverting to the principles…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

…e basis of which the AO could form a belief that the income in respect of such issues had escaped the assessment for AY.2014-15.” 7.9 The Ld. CIT(A) further relied on following decisions in support of his findings : (i) ITO v. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC) (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC) (iii) ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 310 (SC) (iv) Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 379 (Bombay) (v) Gaurang Manhar Gandhi v. ACIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 647 (Bombay…

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

…properties and therefore, he obtained accommodation entries.\n19. So far as the issue of change of opinion is concerned, the Ld. DR drew the\nattention of the Bench to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.\nTechspan India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and drew the attention of the\nBench to para 18 of the order which reads as under:\n“18. Before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the\nground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the court ought to\nverify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary\n21\nITA No.1178/PUN/20…

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

…the properties and therefore, he obtained accommodation entries. 19. So far as the issue of change of opinion is concerned, the Ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and drew the attention of the Bench to para 18 of the order which reads as under: “18. Before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary 21 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) without considering the facts of the present case set aside the re-assessment proceedings, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting castor oil and its derivatives and also in power generation. For the assessment year 2014-15, the a…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) without considering the facts of the present case set aside the re-assessment proceedings, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting castor oil and its derivatives and also in power generation. For the assessment year 2014-15, the a…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, DCIT CIRCLE , AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…sessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen.... 36. Elaborating further on the expression “change of opinion”, this court in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. [Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC).] observed that to check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one would have to see its meaning in literal as well as legal terms. The expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change thereof. In terms of assessment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by the Assessing Officer resulting fr…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…C) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)] - SLP dismissed 9. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…C) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)] - SLP dismissed 9. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal
Section 234BSection 68

…een 25. 25. The mearing of the expression "change of opinion" has been four explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Techspan (P.) Ltd. [2018] ITO v. Techspan (P.) Ltd. [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361/255 Taxman 152/404 ITR 10 92 taxmann.com 361/255 Taxman 152/404 ITR 10 India in the following in the following words :- '16. To check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one '16. To check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one '16. To check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one has to see its meaning in literal as well as legal ter…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…sessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment. " (b) ITO v. Tech Span India Private Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 10 (Del HC) relied upon decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd and held as follows: "initiation of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A was allowed in…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 815/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…sessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment. " (b) ITO v. Tech Span India Private Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 10 (Del HC) relied upon decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd and held as follows: "initiation of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A was allowed in…

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 66/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 65/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 64/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

NOVA ESTATES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 18(4), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Despite Such Scrutiny No Addition Was Made In The Original Assessment Proceedings.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…) was not justified in affirming the reopening the assessment due to change of opinion. Assessment proceedings were concluded after due consideration of all facts and material placed before him. In view of the judgments of ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and CIT vs Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) reopening of assessment merely on change of opinion is bad in law. 6. That the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without the proper sanction and approval as contemplated under the Act. 7. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the issuance of notice u/s 148 is bad in law. 8. Th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, DURG vs. BHILAI JAYPEE CEMENT LTD., BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…d by the-following' decisions. the Apex Court as well as various High Courts which are listed below. a). CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1(FB)(Delhi)(HC) Approved by Supreme Court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) wherein the Apex court has held that re-examining the assessees claim which has already been examined during original scrutiny assessment and with no new material is not permissible. b) In ACIT v. Maria) Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 179 (SC) The reasons in support of the s. 148 notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3