What is Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for mere verification of claims or a fishing and roving inquiry, even after a Section 143(1) intimation. The Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and form an independent, genuine reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, rather than relying on borrowed satisfaction.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 68, Section 10(38), Section 115BBE.

Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT (356 ITR 481)

Q: How many judgments cite Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT?

68 judgments on BharatTax cite Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT (356 ITR 481), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 325/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 6Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1743/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1742/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1740/PUN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Sangli

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

ITA 1739/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…

Anurag, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 1023/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Anurag, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), E-26, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Meerut Uttar Padesh Pin: 250002 (Pan: Aawpa7602C) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

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

…ing Officer forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made of the judgment in case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. Gopalan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2013] 356 ITR 481 (Guj). 7. It is equally well settled that the notice of reopening can be supported on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He cannot supplement such reasons. The third principle of law which is equally well settled and which would apply in the present case is that reopening of the assessment would not be permitted for a fishing…

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 304/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mathur

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ke a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as i…

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 303/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mathur

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ke a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as i…

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 302/PUN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mathur

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ke a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as i…

Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1241/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mathur

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…been issued and re- assessment has been sought for verification of the cash and cheque transactions in the bank account of the assessee. I find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. Vs. M. Gopalan, reported in 2013 356 ITR 481 has observed that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of re-opening of the assessment could not be exercised and it further observed that AO under the guise of power to re-open the assessment cannot seek to undertake an undertaking a fishing or roving inquiry or seek to verify the claim as if he is the scrutiny officer. 6. Consider…

Shri Sharadchandra P. Amin, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 972/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 972/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Sharadchandra P. Amin, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10, Vaishnav Township, Ward-2, Lamvel Road, Vallabh Anand Vidyanagar, Anand-388315 Pan : Abupa 1574 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Iv, Baroda Dated 24Th January 2014 Passed For Assessment Year 2004-05. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Not In Consonance With Rule 8 Of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963; They Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 45Section 68

…aradchandra P. Amin Vs. ITO For AY: 2004-05 4 Representative, at the time of hearing, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India (P.) Ltd vs. M. Gopalan, DCIT, reported in [2013] 36 taxmann.com 401/[2013]356 ITR 481 – he placed on record a copy of the judgment. A perusal of the above judgment would indicate that the Hon’ble High Court has justified the reopening of the assessment qua one of the issue where it found that justifiable reasons are available for reopening of the assessment. It is not that directly on the point agitated before us. Therefore, it is…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…he capital of the assessee and the same is duly recorded in the books of account, needs to be verified and for that purpose, the assessment for A.Y 2009-2010 is sought to be reopened. 12. In case of Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. v. M. Gopalan, Dy. CIT (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) Division Bench of this Court has observed that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It is further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if it wer…

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 172/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.172/RJT/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/s Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot. PAN: AAKFS6892E (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Vimal Desai, A.R : Revenue by Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25…

Murudeshwar Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1163/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 69BSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2007-08 Murudeshwar Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 14, 7th Floor, Naveen Complex, Circle-4(1)(2), M.G Raod, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN – AADCM 8818 Q. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Sukumar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT Date of hearing : 09.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…cals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 2.29. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, wh…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…cals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, whi…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…cals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, whi…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…cals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, whi…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 2.28. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, wh…

Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT

What is Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sangli

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Sangli

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Sangli

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Sangli

Anurag, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Sunil Kanahaiyalal Gidwani, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (3), Pune

Shri Sharadchandra P. Amin, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Murudeshwar Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai