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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/542/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…tary evidence only. It is also submitted that order of the tribunal is contrary to law laid down by Supreme Court. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. VS. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX', (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC), 'INDIAN & EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1979) 2 TAXMAN 197 (SC), 'A.L.A.FIRM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1991) 55 TAXMAN 497 (SC), 'ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD.', (2007) 161 TAXMAN 316 (SC), 'NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. 8 VS. DEPUTY…

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2062/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…on the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur&Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.14 In Writ Petition, No.903G of 2007, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT &Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 (reported at (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353-Ed.) it was held: '10 The term 'failure1 on the pan of the assessee is not restricted…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3968/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…on the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur&Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.14 In Writ Petition, No.903G of 2007, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT &Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 (reported at (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353-Ed.) it was held: '10 The term 'failure1 on the pan of the assessee is not restricted…

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6 (Old), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3245/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…on the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur&Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.14 In Writ Petition, No.903G of 2007, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT &Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 (reported at (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353-Ed.) it was held: '10 The term 'failure1 on the pan of the assessee is not restricted…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6229/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 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…

Ideacount Education P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3191/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3191/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3192/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Ideacount Education Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1 St 101/108, Floor, Shoppers Income Tax, Aayakar Point, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, फनाभ/ Mumbai-400 058 Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabcf1631Q अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivram, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Lks Dehiya, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Shri LKS Dehiya, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 68

…n records or from any inquiry or research into facts or law. Such proposition is there in the case of CIT & Anr. v/s. Rinku Chakraborthy 56 DIR 227(Kar) and 3191 & 3192/Mum/2017 M/s Ideacount Education Pvt. Ltd.; AY 09-10 & 11-12 Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v/s. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). Here in this case, it was found that shares have been issued to the company not having .real capacity and Appellant was a loss making company. Therefore, no genuine investor could invest on higher premium in such company unless there is something else in such process. Such element was detected only later on hence, information were collected…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2038/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…wed as deduction. He placed reliance on following decisions.: Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO reported in (1993) 69 Taxmann.com 627(SC) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2011) 197 taxman 415(Del.) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT reported in (1976)102 ITR 287 15. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Primarily be observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the basis of reopening is certainly the source of information that is already available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) further records that in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and in…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2037/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…wed as deduction. He placed reliance on following decisions.: Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO reported in (1993) 69 Taxmann.com 627(SC) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2011) 197 taxman 415(Del.) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT reported in (1976)102 ITR 287 15. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Primarily be observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the basis of reopening is certainly the source of information that is already available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) further records that in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and in…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2036/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…wed as deduction. He placed reliance on following decisions.: Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO reported in (1993) 69 Taxmann.com 627(SC) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2011) 197 taxman 415(Del.) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT reported in (1976)102 ITR 287 15. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Primarily be observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the basis of reopening is certainly the source of information that is already available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) further records that in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and in…

District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Bidar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 551/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…wed as deduction. He placed reliance on following decisions.: Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs ITO reported in (1993) 69 Taxmann.com 627(SC) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2011) 197 taxman 415(Del.) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT reported in (1976)102 ITR 287 15. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Primarily be observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the basis of reopening is certainly the source of information that is already available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) further records that in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and in…

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment proceedings was made based on audit objection, which amounts to change of opinion, therefore the order is not sustainable under law. 3.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in applying principles in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs CIT (S) 102 ITR 287 while upholding the action of the AO so far as it relates to initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law in as much as the learned AO has passed the re-assessment order without disposing of the objection of the assessee w…

M/S J P Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28

…so amount to a fresh information which comes into existence subsequent to the original assessment. Taxpayer would note allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing authority as held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT(S) 102 ITR 287. The basis for re- opening of the assessment would certainly be the source of information. When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the ITO, he has jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Reassessment is permissible even if the informatio…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Ltu), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

…1. However, the details of rural branches based on 2001 census was available even at the time of original assessment. The Assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & co vs CIT 102 ITR 287. However, this decision has been overruled by a subsequent decision in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT 119 ITR 986, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that power to re-open does not include power to review. This has been further reiterated by the Apex Court in ALA Firm vs CIT 183 ITR 285. It was contended that the Assessing…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT(LTU), Vs. M/s. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, NBCC Plaza Pusp Vihar, RK Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Assessee by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Depashree Rao, Adv Mr. Vibhu Aggarwal, CA Date of Hearing 13/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 21/07/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal filed by the ld DCIT (LTU), Circle-1, New Delhi [ The ld AO]…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6218/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Dcit, Vs Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 18, 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, Near Yes Bank New Delhi Atm, New Delhi – 110 005 (Pan : Aahcs 6810 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 403/Del/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6218/Del/2015) ( Assessment Year – 2008-09 ) Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Dcit, 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Circle – 18, Karol Bagh, Near Yes Bank Jhandewalan, Atm, New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi (Pan : Aahcs 6810 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. H. K. Chaudhari, Cit-D.R. Revenue By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2020

Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 264

…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 & CO No.403/Del/2015 148 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 r…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…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 Kalyani 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 farthe…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…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 Kalyani 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 farthe…

Empee Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1503/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…e basis of information which comes to him after the original assessment and during the course of the assessment proceedings for a subsequent assessment year. This principle was laid down in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 while construing the expression "information" in Section 34(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. A similar principle of law was enunciated in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409/44 Taxman 86 where the Income tax Officer came to realise that income had escaped assessment for two assessment…

Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 668/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…re is nothing on record to show that the issue of taxability of contribution of donation was raised and decided in favour of the assessee company. It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT, 102 ITR 287 and CIT vs. A. Raman and Co, 67 ITR 11 that ‘’to inform means’’ to ‘’ to impart knowledge’’ and the detail available to the ITO in the papers filed before him does not by its mere availability become an item of information. It is transmuted into an item of information in his possession only if, and only when, its existence is realized and its…

Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 667/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…re is nothing on record to show that the issue of taxability of contribution of donation was raised and decided in favour of the assessee company. It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT, 102 ITR 287 and CIT vs. A. Raman and Co, 67 ITR 11 that ‘’to inform means’’ to ‘’ to impart knowledge’’ and the detail available to the ITO in the papers filed before him does not by its mere availability become an item of information. It is transmuted into an item of information in his possession only if, and only when, its existence is realized and its…