ITO v. Kayathwal Estates Pvt. Ltd.

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

…eyond 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\nsame is mere change of opinion and the same cannot be reopened wi…

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

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

…sued 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 mere change of opinion and the same cannot be reopened without i…