India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & ors.

275 ITR 155High Court2005#20261 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & ors.

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1209/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1209/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Hindustan Steelworks Construction Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata Ltd. 5/1, Commissionrate Road, (Hastings) Kolkata – 700022(W.B) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach9524R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Adv./H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca/Swaraj Kr., Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas Meena, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata Dated 01.03.2018 Passed In Case No.1999/Cit(A)-4/2014-15/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Petition Dated 01.06.2018 & On Account Of No Objection From Department Side, We Condone Four Days’ Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal. 3. It Transpires At The Outset That The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Challenging Validity Of Reopening Initiated U/S 148/147 Of The Act. A Very Strong Objection Has Come From The Revenue Side That This Additional Ground Does Not Deserve To Be Admitted At Second Appellate Stage. We Find No Merit In Revenue’S

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, Adv./H.V. Bhardwaj, FCA/Swaraj Kr., FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas Meena, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…245 ITR 567(Cal) holds that such a disclosure does not mean that there has been any failure in not stating “fully and truly” all necessary particulars regarding computation of income. Their lordships latter decision in India Steamship Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2005) 275 ITR 155(Cal) also reiterates the very view. 8. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decisions in Dipak Kr. Dasbhowmik vs. ITO ITA No.2384/Kol/2017 dated 23.02.2018 and ACIT vs. Fortune Steel Industries ITA No.3095/Mum/2006 dated 13.10.2010 also quash similar reassessment(s) wherein the Assessing Officer had not recorded the foregoing failure as prescribed…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1976/KOL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.……......………..…..................Appellant Vs. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals.....……………...........…………..……………………...……..….…….......Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower-1, Block-Em Plot No. 3 Salt Lake City Sector-V, 3Rd Floor Kolkata -91 [Pan : Aaach 7360 R]

Section 250

…where it was held that Guidance notes issued is binding and revenue cannot reject it easily. He further relied on the jurisdictional High Court in case of India Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. (2005)194 CTR (Cal) 386; Eq: (2005) 275 ITR 155 (Cal) has denied the claim of the Revenue that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the act and assessee can claim the deduction of the amount incurred before the commencement of commercial production over a number of years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR…

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

…sue is so apparent and obvious that to soy that the AO has not formed an opinion would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. 3.21] Simitar view has also been expressed in the following cases:- - India Steamship Co. Ltd -vs.- JCIT and others (2005) 275 ITR 155 (Cal) - Appolo Hospital Enterprises -vs. -ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 25 (Mad) - Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd, -vs.- DCIT(1999) 237 ITR 663.675 (Gui) - Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd. (1975) 101 ITR 55 (Cal) 3.22] In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd, -vs.- DCIT & Ors. (2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom) wherein it was held that concluded assessments can be reopen…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1707/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) -Vs.- M/S Eih Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.No.62/Kol/2016 (A/O I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Eih Ltd. -Vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Cross Objector) For The Department : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…de before the AO and CIT(A) and further placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements : i) Rangal Bagaria HUF vs ACIT [2016] 70 taxmann. Com 341 (Cal) ii) CIT vs Sonitpur Solvex Ltd [2013] 352 ITR 305 (Gauhati) iii) India Steamship Co.Ltd. vs JCIT 275 ITR 155 (Cal) iv) Sabharwal Properties Industries P.Ltd vs ITO 382 ITR 547 (Del) 10. In the decisions cited at sl. Nos.(ii) to (iv) the Courts have taken a view that when an assessment is reopened by issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act in the case of an assesse whose assessment has already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the relevant assessment yea…