How many judgments cite Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT (234 ITR 170), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 133(6), Section 142(1).

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT

234 ITR 170High Court1998#1588 most cited

What is Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reopening an assessment is not permissible without fresh tangible material, merely on a change of opinion or a fresh application of mind to the same facts.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jindal Photo Films Ltd v DCIT · section 147 · section 148 · reopening assessment · fresh tangible material · change of opinion · fresh application of mind · 234 ITR 170 · 105 Taxmann 386

Also reported as

105 Taxmann 386

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142A Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 144(1)(b)true and full disclosure amp expenditure section 92ba fresh tangible material sanctioning authority sanction under section 151 section 163 mere change of opinion section 151(1)kelvinator transfer pricing order

Judgments citing Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view finds support from the decision from Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- i. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), ii. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, iii. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), iv. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), v. Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), vi. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Madanlal Bansal and Sons, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 470/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

…sment is not enough lo evoke reopening under this section. It has to be based on a firm and concrete belief based on facts that income has escaped assessment. Further it is pertinent to note that in case of Jindal Photo films Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT Manu/De/07Z9/1998;234 ITR 170 (Del) was held that "Another significant aspect to be noted is that the Assessing Officer must ensure that he was sufficient reason to believe that the income escaped assessment for fault on the part of the assessee. This is essential failure of the assessee to disclose information which affects the assessment proceedings." Whereas in the present…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…s has been the settled position in law all through. However, the question which requires consideration is whether any change in law has been brought about on account of amendment of section 147 with effect from April 1, 1989. In Jindal Photo Films Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), R. C. Lahoti J. (as his Lordship then was), observed (headnote) : “The power to reopen an assessment was conferred by the Legislature not with the intention to enable the Income-tax Officer to reopen the ITA No. 1036/Mds/2016. :- 12 -: final decision made against the Revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in e…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…ation of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view find support from following decisions:- a. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), b. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, c. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

Blue Star Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7187/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Blue Star Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle-6(1), 4Th Floor, Band Box House, Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacb6385J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle-6(1), M/S Blue Star Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Band Box House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaacb6385J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. N.P. Singh (Sr.CIT-DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 46A

…s of Audit report related with the issue of Sale tax which is available at page no. 82 of the PB. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170) (Del.). On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue argued that AO was having sufficient reasons to belief that income escaped from assessment. The ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the ld. CIT(A) while considering the contention of assessee has elaborately discussed the issue in para 71.5 and 716 of its order. The ld. CIT(A) rightly apprecia…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ther vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) 4) Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk Mills vs DCIT (1996) 222 ITR 68 (Guj.) 8) Mercury Travels DCIT (2002) 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 9)JCIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) 33 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. 10) CIT vs Sambhar Salt ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 675 (Raj.) We find that there was no new tangible material with the Assess…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. Cgg Marine Resources Norge, Gurgaon

In the result ground No. 13 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 1493/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv

Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…arrive at a conclusion that he had committed an error in computing the taxable income of the assessee and reopen the assessment proceedings. This view of the Court is fortified by a decision of the Delhi High Court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 /[1999] 105 Taxman 386 . As stated earlier, the combined effect of the provisions of sections 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand inasmuch as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 20…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ame set of facts or “mere change of opinion” does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view find support from the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…umbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O. No.39/Mum/2016 not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view find support from the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B…

Mr. DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1338/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1338/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2002-03)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1338/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) DCIT vs Bharti Airtel Ltd. Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D (Formerly Bharti Cellular Ltd.) C. R. Building No.1, Aravali Crescent, Nelson New Delhi Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, (APPELLANT) Phase-III New Delhi AAACB2894G (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. J. C. Bhalla, CA Date of Hearing 04.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 10.08.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 03/1…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…on of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. Our view find support from following decisions:- a. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), b. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, c. Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ni in ITA no. 5085/Mum/ 2001(Mum Trib.) v) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1(Del.)(FB) vi) Wyeth India Private Limited v. IAC 137 ITR 20(Bom.) vii) Garden Silk Mills Private Limited v. DCIT 237 ITR 668(Guj.) viii) Jindal Photo Mills Limited v. DCIT 234 ITR 170(Del) ix) India Steamship Co. Limited v. JCIT 194 CTR 386(Cal.) x) Transworld International Inc. 192 CTR 97(Del) It was also submitted that reassessment has been made mainly based on the audit observation which is not permitted in law. The assesse company also relied upon following case laws to support its contentions : i) Siemens Information Sy…

Smt Santi Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-37(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 797/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM] I.T.A No.797/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Santi Sarkar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-37(2), Kolkata. (PAN: AIZPS0257J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 10.03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 16.03.2016 For the Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-12, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 13/CIT(A)-12/Kol/Wd.37(2)/2014-15 dated 30.03.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-37(2),…

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 36/KOL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & Shri Harish Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.36/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Vs. M/s. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-8, Kolkata. (PAN: AADCS6121L) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.05/Kol/2012 In I.T.A No.36/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/s. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(OSD) Circle-8, Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 17.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 09 .03.2016 For the Revenue: Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Assessee: Shr…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer even under the post 1989 section 147 of the Act. My view find 25 Mr. R.P. Suvarna support from the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.), Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj.) 533, Govind Chhapabhai Patel vs DCIT 240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Cheviot Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 530/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Cheviot Co. Ltd. Circle-1, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCC2380H) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 44/Kol/2012 In I.T.A No. 530/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Cheviot Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 531/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Cheviot Co. Ltd. Circle-1, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCC2380H) (Appellant) (…

M/S. Brv Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Brv Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 14(4) (Earlier Known As Prominent New Delhi Insurance Brokers P.Ltd.) C 52, Vivek Vihar Delhi 110 095 Pan: Aadcp 3196 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 148Section 68

…Taxmann.com328 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) 9.5. The A.O. does not have the power to review his own order u/s 147 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170. 9.6. For all these reasons the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground that the reopening is bad in law and also on the ground that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th December,2015. (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT ME…