How many judgments cite Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer (159 ITR 956), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 132, Section 10(38), Section 133(6).

Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer (159 ITR 956)

Q: What is Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

For an addition to income or issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148, there must be a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; mere suspicion cannot form the basis for such action, as 'reason to believe' is not the same as 'reason to suspect'.

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…We also do not find any allegation by Ld.AO that, assessee has not fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. At this juncture, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian oil Corporation vs ITO reported in 159 ITR 956 wherein, Hon’ble court held that, the ‘reason to believe’ is not the same thing as, ‘reason to suspect’. Hon’ble Court also held that, the ‘reason to suspect’ is narrower than, ‘reason to believe’ and that, where the reasons recorded, merely showed that, there was a mere suspicion that income has escaped assessment, it would not amount to ‘reason…

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ession used in 147 is “has reason to believe” which does not 12 mean “has reason to suspect”. For the above proposition, he relied on the following judgments:- (i) Ganga Prasad Maheswari Vs CIT, 139 ITR 1043(AII); and (ii) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC). 9. In his next plank of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the AO must apply his mind to the information coming from outside and then entertain a belief that income has escaped assessment. Referring to the reasons recorded, he submitted that the…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d that where there is non-application of mind by the AO, it cannot be said to have reason to believe so as to justify reopening of the assessment. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs ITO reported in 159 ITR 956 (SC) and Bhor Industries Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 267 ITR 161 (Bom.) and various other decisions, he submitted that reopening of the assessment for verification of facts and possible escapement on the basis of incomplete material is not in accordance with law. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in response to n…

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…e the facts, the re- assessment proceedings are not valid.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foraner France 264 ITR 566 held that “re-assessment – not on basis of mere change of opinion”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956 held that “no case under section 148 is made-out when the facts were known all along with the Revenue while making the original assessment.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Stone Industry 244 ITR 560 held that “assessee shall have to disclose only primary facts.” 20 ITA.No.5196/Del./2019 M/s. Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s a mere "reason to suspect" that has escaped assessment and it does not make out a case of “reason to believe that income has escaped assessment”. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs ITO reported in 159 ITR 956 at page 970 wherein it was held that reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. It is well settled that reason to suspect is narrower than reason to believe. It is submitted that the phrase employed in section 147 of the Act is “reason to believe" and not a “reason to suspect”. It has been held that where the reasons recorded m…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s a mere "reason to suspect" that has escaped assessment and it does not make out a case of “reason to believe that income has escaped assessment”. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs ITO reported in 159 ITR 956 at page 970 wherein it was held that reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. It is well settled that reason to suspect is narrower than reason to believe. It is submitted that the phrase employed in section 147 of the Act is “reason to believe" and not a “reason to suspect”. It has been held that where the reasons recorded m…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information". [iii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: 15 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. "reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147". [iv] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has re…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 Assessment Year 2005-2006 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India The ACIT, Ltd., 14th & 15th Floor, Circle – 1 (1), Tower-C, DLF Cyber vs., Green, Gurgaon-122002. New Delhi. PAN AACCA8667N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate For Assessee : And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,Advocate For Revenue : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…ITO. 9. 298 ITR 198 (Del.) Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT. 10. 87 ITR 349 (SC) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 11. 82 ITR 147 (SC) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC. 12. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 13. 253 ITR 83 Bawa Abhai Singh. 14. 159 ITR 956 (SC( CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation. 15. 103 ITR 437 (SC) ITO vs. Lakhamani Mewal Das. 16. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 17. ITA No. 4908/Del/2012 dated 31.3.2015 Jiten Gurnani vs. ITO 18. ITA No. 1372/D/2015 dated 28.10.2015 Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO 19. ITA No. 512/D/2015 dated 2.12.2015 Punjab Metal Store vs.…

Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…was genuine or not. Therefore, it is not a case of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. ITO, 159 ITR 956 (SC). The ld. A/R has submitted that when there was no tangible material to come 5 Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur. to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income, the reopening of assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. 3.1. The next contention of the ld. A/R is that the reopening of the assessment is after expiry of 4 (four) years…

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITA 46/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA and Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Seema Meena,JCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 147Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 46/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2006-07 cuke Shri Om Prakash Rajoria The ITO Vs. 267, Arya Nagar, Ward- 1(1) Scheme No. 1, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAOPR 6556 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 282/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2012-13 cuke The DCIT Shri Om Prakash Rajoria Vs. Circle-1 2…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Long Island Dox Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Dec 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 146Section 148

…t equivalent to -chef as also held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgement in the case of CIT vs Gupta Abhushan(P.) Ltd.(2009) 312 ITR 166 (Del) relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Indian Oil Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC). Recently Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs Takshila Distributors (P) Ltd.(2009)121 TTJ 973(Delhi) has held that the reasons cannot be recorded for making further deeper scrutiny and only that material which is available at the stage of recording of reasons can be referred to examine the validity of reasons recorded. Thus, in…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…t valid. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foraner France, 264 ITR 566 held reassessment — not on basis of mere change of opinion — law same before and after amendment by direct tax laws. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, 159 ITR 956 held that no case u/s 148 is made out when the facts were known all along with to the revenue while ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 9 -: making the original assessment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Stone Industry Ltd., 224 ITR 560 held that the assessee shall have to disclose only the primary facts. Considering the above legal propos…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/JPR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala v. M.G. Kamat (1994) 210 ITR 956 (Bom) “Assessee primarily must disclose particular portions of documents which are material.” (f) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) (g) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) (h) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (i) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 4.8. In the above quoted cases, mainly it was held that the assessee must disclose all primary facts fully and truly. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment fo…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…ted 15th July, 2013) That the alleged information of the investigation wing can alone be a reason to suspect however, in the absence of any other material, same cannot be tangible material for the formation of the belief :- CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation a) 159 ITR 956 (SC) CIT vs. Gupta Abhushan (P.) Ltd. [2009] b) 312 ITR 166 (Delhi) SMCC Construction India Ltd vs. ACIT [2014] c) 220 Taxman 354 (Delhi) CIT vs Paramjit Kaur d) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) “Reason to believe” entertained by the Assessing Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational and are stronger words “is satisfied” (Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO…

Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer

What is Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Indian Oil Corporation v. Income Tax Officer

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Long Island Dox Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

ACIT, Alwar vs. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi