ITO v. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD

176 ITR 529Supreme Court of India1989#10275 most cited

What is ITO v. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD authority for?

If an assessee makes a full and true disclosure of all material facts, and the Assessing Officer accepts the disclosed documents and treats the transaction as genuine while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot later reopen the assessment on the ground of failure to disclose material facts.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad · 176 ITR 529 · reassessment proceedings · failure to disclose material facts · full and true disclosure · section 147 · section 148 · genuine transaction · assessment completed

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

reassessment proceedingssection 143(1)section 148section 147section 143section 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessdocument

Judgments citing ITO v. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 148

…23 C.O. Nos.23, 24, 21,22 and 25/LKW/2023 Page 26 of 61 assessee to make full and true disclosure in the instant case. In this regard, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad, 176 ITR 529 and submitted that in this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that where assessee had disclosed all material facts and the AO had accepted the documents produced and had treated the transaction to be genuine and on that footing had completed the assessment, then it was no open for the AO to re-open the assessment on the ground that there was f…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

…[1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC) 14. The learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC), and ITO Vs. Mewalal Dwaraka Prasad reported in (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), submitted that considering the difference in the views taken in ITO Vs. Mewalal Dwaraka Prasad (supra) and Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (supra), the matter came up for consideration before a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme :17: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & Court in the case of ITO Vs. K.L. Srihari (HUF) reported in (2001) 250 ITR…

Chiripal Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 708/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 708/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Chirpal Industries Limited, D.C.I.T, Chirpal House, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Shivranjani Cross Road, Ahmedabad. Satellight, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacc8513B

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 116JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…High Court after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and Excess Profit Tax, [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC), ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad, [1989] 176 ITR 529/43 Taxman 40 (SC), 'ITO v. K.L. Srihari (HUF) [2001] 118 Taxman 890/250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.' [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) and reached a conclusion that even assuming for the sake of argument that if an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act is considered to be an order of assessmen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…ll-settled that the law applicable for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is that as obtaining on the date of filing the original return, being 29.9.2009 in the instant case (Onkar Saran & Sons v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 1 (SC); ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC)), so that the issue of maintainability of penalty would be governed by the substituted Explanation 4, interpretation of which, considering the acceptance by the Revenue of the view expressed in Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (supra) and, in fact, instructing its' officers accordingly, which is binding thereon u/s. 119(2)(a), gets resolved as per…

M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/392/2016HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…h it is liable to pay under the law. It is also urged that the loss claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'ITO VS. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD', (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), 'ITO VS. K.L.SRIHARI (HUF) (2001) 250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act withi…

O.P.Yadav, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circ Le-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5523/DEL/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…is, however, does not mean thatthe section is to be liberally construed; since the reopening of an assessment is a power of an extraordinary nature, the section should be strictly construed., New Kaiser-I-Hind v CIT 107 ITR 760, 764; ITO v MewalalDwarkaprasad 176 ITR 529 (SC). It is in this light that sections 147/148 are to be construed ie they are to be construed strictly. 22. Section 147 of the Act is titled as 'Income Escaping Assessment'. It provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to the tax has escaped in any assessment year, he could re-assess the income sub…

Mphasis Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/55355/2017HC Karnataka21 Jan 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 40

…terial facts necessary for his assessment” for that assessment year. The Proviso going by its text and context needs to be construed strictly since the re-opening of an assessment is a power of an extraordinary nature vide ITO vs. MEWALAL DWARKAPRASAD, 176 ITR 529 (SC). The said section along with this Proviso (other parts not being much relevant) is reproduced below for easy reference: “147. Income escaping assessment: If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other inco…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…1 ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय माननीय माननीय माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। माननीय माननीय माननीय BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) DCIT-Circle 3(1) ICICI Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम ICICI Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR…

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

ITTA/392/2016HC Telangana20 Oct 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Sri N Govindaraju vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

…erits, the assessee also challenged the adopting of fair market value at Rs.84/- per sq.ft., as well as disallowance of 50% of the expenditure. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs Mewalal Dwarka Prashad – (1989) 176 ITR 529, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified in law. On merits also, the finding of the CIT(A) with regard to adopting the fair market value and disallowance of expenditure, were upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed, which has been admitted on the fo…

ITO v. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD (176 ITR 529) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax