ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.

92 Taxmann.com 361Supreme Court of India2018#485 most cited

What is ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

194

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(3) · mere change of opinion · reopening of assessment · reassessment validity · tangible material · full disclosure · scrutiny assessment · reason to believe

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 10ASection 10AASection 144C(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

mere change of opinionkelvinatorchange of opiniontangible materialescapement of incomereason to believereopening of assessmentreassessment proceedingsscrutiny assessmentnotice under section 148section 148section 153

Judgments citing ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) without considering the facts of the present case set aside the re-assessment proceedings, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting castor oil and its derivatives and also in power generation. For the assessment year 2014-15, the a…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) without considering the facts of the present case set aside the re-assessment proceedings, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting castor oil and its derivatives and also in power generation. For the assessment year 2014-15, the a…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. K.C.P.Shivaraman, Karur

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2183/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri K.C.P. Shivaraman बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), #330, Chinna Andan Koil Road, Vs. Chennai. Karur-639 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxps-4844-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…allege the advance as kick back was unjustified. The reassessment was only a case of review and a mere change of opinion on the part of Ld. AO. 4.4 The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. (92 Taxmann.com 361) to support the decision on legal grunds. The facts were stated to be identical. Accordingly, the assessment was held to be void ab initio. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. From the facts as narrated in preceding paragraphs, it could be seen that the original return of income as filed…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…sessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen.... 36. Elaborating further on the expression “change of opinion”, this court in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. [Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC).] observed that to check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one would have to see its meaning in literal as well as legal terms. The expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change thereof. In terms of assessment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by the Assessing Officer resulting fr…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…C) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)] - SLP dismissed 9. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…C) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)] - SLP dismissed 9. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Aurangabad Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., F-11, 3rd Floor, Veer Nariman Vs. Road, Churchgate, Manek Mahal, Mumbai – 400020 PAN: AADCV5473G (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.21/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Aurangabad F-11, 3rd Floor, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Churchgate, Manek Mahal, Mumbai – 400020 PAN: AADCV5473G (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshar…

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ITA No.665/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Shri Rang Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Shyamvan, Gandhinagar Circle, B/h. Vrundavan Hotel, Gandhinagar. Koba Circle, Vs. Post: Koba Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 007 Gujarat. [PAN – AAICS 9126 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2024 Date of Pr…

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Priti Bharat Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…P a g e | 1 ITO, 19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITO-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend CHS 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAEPP1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent by : H.M. Bhatt Date of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The pres…

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…ITA No.20/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, The Deputy Commissioner of C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Income Tax, “Kamal Shanti”, Circle – 7(1), Beside Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Vs. Naranpura, Ahmedabad – 380 014. [PAN – ANFPM 6538 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hem Chhajed, AR (VH) Revenue by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2024 Date of Prono…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ime of assessment. Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 187 taxmann312(SC) b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that wou…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kesoram Idustries Limited

ITA/1/2014HC Calcutta06 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

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

…r failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to he struck down as invalid." 18. In the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.62 vs. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd. and another, (2018) 6 SCC 685 (Paras 14 to 18), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "14. The language of Section 147 makes it clear that the assessing officer certainly has the power to re-assess any income which escaped assessment for any assessment year subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153. However, the use of this power is conditional upon the fact that the asse…

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal
Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/s Balaji Bullion & DCIT Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3rd floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. PAN NO. AADCB 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR : 27/03/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 03/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28.03.2018 passed by…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…sessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment. " (b) ITO v. Tech Span India Private Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 10 (Del HC) relied upon decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd and held as follows: "initiation of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A was allowed in…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 815/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…sessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment. " (b) ITO v. Tech Span India Private Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 10 (Del HC) relied upon decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd and held as follows: "initiation of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A was allowed in…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 66/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 65/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 64/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such, the re- assessment is arbitrary and unjustified. Reliance has been placed on ‘PCIT v. L & T Ltd.’, (2020) 268 Taxman 391 (Bom) (HC) and that ‘P…

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. (92 Taxmann.com 361) — Cited in 194 Judgments | BharatTax