Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

102 ITR 287Supreme Court of India1976#739 most cited

What is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court broadly defined 'information' for reassessment under Section 147 to include new facts, external sources, material already on record, or a correct understanding of law from judicial decisions. This definition enables reopening assessments based on subsequent information or mistakes.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · definition of information · reason to believe · escapement of income · fresh tangible material · mere change of opinion · live link · Section 147(b)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 115JBSection 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible materialsection 34(1)within four yearsfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormere change of opinionsection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 148(2)change of opinionlive link

Judgments citing Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

Sapna Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 1468/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

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

ITA 1467/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

…ose provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under s.147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned Judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the ITO must fall within S.34(1)(b) of the Page No. 18 Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) Indian I.T.Act,1922. It appears to us, with respect that the proposition is stated too widely and trav…

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.190 to 191/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 to 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOCS4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.250/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Th…

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.190 to 191/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 to 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOCS4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.250/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Th…

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.190 to 191/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 to 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOCS4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.250/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The ITO, No.504, 5th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Th…

Sahara Housingfine Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kol., Kolkata

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

ITA 504/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Limited, Coimbatore

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1879/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1, 45/3A, Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Opp. To Bala Lodge, Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-8761-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1879/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT M/s. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1, 45/3A, Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Opp. to Bala Lodge, Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC-8761-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaragha…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S Hotel Ishika, Raipur

ITA 235/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 235/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Hotel Ishika, A-08, Shubham Vihar, New Purena Raipur, Pan : Aadfh8557L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that the material available on the record cannot be used for the reopening of the assessment, thereby ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287, wherein it has been held that reassessment is permissible on the basis of the material already available on record and the information need not be from external source?" 8. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced by the assessee, if any, without all…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6214/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…applicable on the facts of the present case. 24. Few more cases on which reliance has been placed by ld. D/R i.e. in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC), Claggat Brachi Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) and Kalyan Mavji and Co. Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). In all these cases certain information was received during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, notice u/s was issued and held as valid. However, in the present case no such facts are involved as no information was received during the assessment proceedings. We have also seen various other case laws on which reliance has been placed b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6213/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…applicable on the facts of the present case. 24. Few more cases on which reliance has been placed by ld. D/R i.e. in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC), Claggat Brachi Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) and Kalyan Mavji and Co. Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). In all these cases certain information was received during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, notice u/s was issued and held as valid. However, in the present case no such facts are involved as no information was received during the assessment proceedings. We have also seen various other case laws on which reliance has been placed b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6212/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…applicable on the facts of the present case. 24. Few more cases on which reliance has been placed by ld. D/R i.e. in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC), Claggat Brachi Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) and Kalyan Mavji and Co. Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). In all these cases certain information was received during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, notice u/s was issued and held as valid. However, in the present case no such facts are involved as no information was received during the assessment proceedings. We have also seen various other case laws on which reliance has been placed b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6211/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…applicable on the facts of the present case. 24. Few more cases on which reliance has been placed by ld. D/R i.e. in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC), Claggat Brachi Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) and Kalyan Mavji and Co. Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). In all these cases certain information was received during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, notice u/s was issued and held as valid. However, in the present case no such facts are involved as no information was received during the assessment proceedings. We have also seen various other case laws on which reliance has been placed b…

The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Sankalp Realities, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that the material available on the record cannot be used for the reopening of the assessment, thereby ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT(SC) 102 ITR 287, wherein it has been held that reassessment is permissible on the basis of the material already available on record and the information need not be from external source?" 4. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs P.V…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…h information of judgments that such information need not be from external need not be from external source – refer CIT & anr. vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and CIT & anr. vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent Kalyanji Mavji and Company Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent Kalyanji Mavji and Company Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s 148, tangible to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s 148, tangible to mention that for reopening…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…at the time of reopening AO is not required to establish the escapement of Income. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The existence of reason is enough in this regard; reliance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court. a. Kalyanji Maji & Co. v/s CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another v/s ITO & Anr. (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v/s ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 Apart from above facts emerging in this case, there are various case laws which support reopening of assessment o…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 68

…ment. In the review of the assessment rather than reassessment. In the case of CIT & Ars v. Rinku Chakraborthy 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Ars v. Rinku Chakraborthy 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Ars v. Rinku Chakraborthy 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company v. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) it is held that Kalyanji Mavji and Company v. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) it is held that Kalyanji Mavji and Company v. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) it is held that M/s M Pallonji Enterprises M/s M Pallonji Enterprises 12 ITA No. 1907/M/2017 & CO No. 204/M/2018 ITA No. 1907/M/2017 & CO No. 204/M/2018 such information need not be from external sources only…

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 3331 & 3332/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Mangilal Jain Vs. Acit – 33(1) 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, 103, 1St Floor, Atmaram Sawnt Marg, Eastern House, Kandivali (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj0925G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…m the materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgement that such information need not be from external source vide CIT and anr. vs. Rinku Chakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and KalyanjiMavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) - TIOL 464 ITAT Mumbai. It is also relevant to mention th…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court: a. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 ITR 456 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna Sri Kr…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the enough. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court: a. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 ITR 456 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna Sri Kr…