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

Sterling Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 6154/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.6154, 6155, 6156, 6157 & 6158/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Sterling Jewels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit-5(3)(2) 208, A-Z Industrial Estate 460, Aaykar Bhawan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K.Road, Churchgate Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs3316D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pvt.Ltd. vs. CiT (247 ITR 818) (SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs DCIT & Ors (241 ITR 856 ) (Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (All.HC) (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287)(SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to notice subsequently, even though they are already on record. (v) The Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel and Vasanth Chunilal Patel v. ACIT (236 ITR 832) (1999) has held that where the AO had overlooked some…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…sue, 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 has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is no…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…sue, 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 has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is no…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…sue, 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 has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is no…

Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 324/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he AO had come to a belief that income had escaped assessment. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 10 I.T.A. No.321-325/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 to 2015-16 M/s Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., vs CIT [1976]102 ITR 287 (SC) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the position of law with regard to conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of reopening of assessment. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 34(1)* contemplates two categories of cases for reopening the previous assessment: (1) where there h…

Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 323/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he AO had come to a belief that income had escaped assessment. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 10 I.T.A. No.321-325/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 to 2015-16 M/s Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., vs CIT [1976]102 ITR 287 (SC) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the position of law with regard to conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of reopening of assessment. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 34(1)* contemplates two categories of cases for reopening the previous assessment: (1) where there h…

Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 322/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he AO had come to a belief that income had escaped assessment. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 10 I.T.A. No.321-325/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 to 2015-16 M/s Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., vs CIT [1976]102 ITR 287 (SC) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the position of law with regard to conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of reopening of assessment. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 34(1)* contemplates two categories of cases for reopening the previous assessment: (1) where there h…

Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 321/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he AO had come to a belief that income had escaped assessment. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 10 I.T.A. No.321-325/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 to 2015-16 M/s Arihant Constructions, Visakhapatnam 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., vs CIT [1976]102 ITR 287 (SC) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the position of law with regard to conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of reopening of assessment. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 34(1)* contemplates two categories of cases for reopening the previous assessment: (1) where there h…

Tanaya Gems & Jewellery Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly confirm the addition. The ground is dismissed

ITA 3196/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) DCIT-5(3)(2), M/s Tanaya Gems & Jewellery Mumbai, Exports Ltd. बिधम/ 5th floor, 52 Marble Arch, Dr. Pin- Vs. G. D. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCT5863H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / : Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri D. G. Pansari, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.04.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.06.2019 Date o…

K. Nagarajan Alias Rajesh Krishnan, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 676/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10 Shri K. Nagarajan Alias Rajesh Krishan, Parvi Golden Nest, 132, 1St H Cross, 7Th Main The Income Tax Officer, Road, Vs. Ward – 2 (3) (5), Subbanna Garden, Bangalore. Vijaynagar, Bangalore – 560 040. Pan: Aahpn0969N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H.N. Khincha, Ca : Shri Tshering Ongda, Jcit (Dr) & Respondent By Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CA

…alsoamount to a fresh information which comes into existence subsequent to the original assessment.Taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxingauthority as held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji& Co. Vs CIT(S) 102 ITR 287. The basis for re- opening ofthe assessment would certainly be the source of information. When an income liable to tax has escapedassessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistakecommitted by the ITO, he has jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Reassessment is permissible evenif the information is…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai vs. Calvin Properties, Mumbai

ITA 6561/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pyf. Lfcf vs. CIT (247 ITR R18)(SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs. DCIT &0rs (241 ITR 856)(Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (AIL HC) (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to 8 I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 M/s Calvin Properties notice subsequent^, even though they are already on record. (v) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel and Vasanth Chunilal Patel v. ACIT (236…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…e matter, would not impede reassessment. The law in the matter is well settled, as explained in several decisions by the Apex Court, viz. PVS Beedis (supra); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC); ALA Firm (supra); Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), to cite some. Per contra, the material/information does not necessarily have to be from an external source, and could be from the material on record, as further clarified in the afore-cited cases, as indeed in Sewak Ram (supra); Grover Nursing Home v. ITO [2001] 248 ITR 493 (P&H); Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281…

The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Parimal Sureshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2366/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2366/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…ngs was not in accordance with the provisions of law as there was no discussion on the issue in the original assessment order and no details were called for, question of change of opinion does not arise, reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. [3] The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,97,44,712/- made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land, as the addition was made on the basis of evidences found during the course of survey in the case of co- purchaser of the land and his admission regarding payment of on- money.” 3. The learne…

Sumati Kumar Lunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 457/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia Vs. I.T.O Ward 36(4), Kolkata Pan: Aavpl 7736 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…case, that will also amount to a fresh information which comes into existence subsequent to the original assessment - Taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing authority [Kalyanji Mavji& Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287] 3. Similarly, as regards the "existence of reason" Vs "sufficiency of reason", this has also been adjudicated as follows: Sufficiency of reason is not open to question in a court of law but the existence of belief can be challenged. Courts can examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters with regard to which he is…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3569/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Ward 1(1), N-86, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadca3663M Co No.80/Del/2016 (Ita No.3569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.K. Goenka & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, N-86, Connaught Place, Ward 1(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadca3663M

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Samujh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…n oversight". Reference was also made to the decision in of the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC), and it was noted that the contrary view in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) was no longer good law. In this context reference was also made to the decision of Atma Ram (supra). The Court clarified that Explanation (1) to Section 147 applies only where the AO on the basis of account books or other evidence fails to discover the material facts and not where the AO fails to apply the relevant law. There can be no doubt…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…439 (Bom) (para 17) ITA. No.4871/Mum/2014 16 Landmark Education India 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR…

A.C.I.T.-20(3), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Varsha P. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and matter is restored back to the file of Ld

ITA 2054/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2054/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Parikh, AR
Section 143(3)

…said that the reopening of concluded assessment u/s 147 was invalid , more-so reopening was done within four years from the end of assessment and proviso to Section 147 is not attracted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vrs. CIT (102 ITR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which come to notice subsequently even though they are already on record. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vrs. Rajesh 22 I.T.A. No. 2054/Mum/2016 Mrs. Varsha P. Shah Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 161 taxman 316 (SC)/201…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…d and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 5390 of 2007, (ii) CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC), (iii) Claggett Brachi Co.Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC). (iv) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34, Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V.CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC), (v) Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of sales Tax Vs Ambway Machinery (226 CTR 659). 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee while filing return of income has disclosed all the material facts fully and truly. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 30.11.20…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

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

…ing, Shri V. K. Chaturvedi, Ld. DR, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), while coming to a particular conclusion, ignored the decision in Kalyanji Mavji & Company vs CIT 102 ITR 287 (Supreme Court) and Ess Kay Engg. Company (P). Ltd. vs CIT (247 ITR 818)(Supreme Court). 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mehul Shah, defended the impugned order by contending that the necessary details were called for by the Ld. Assessing Officer before framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Our…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Institutional Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3662/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. VidhyadharFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram
Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM I.T.A. No.3662/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. CIT – 3(2)(1), M/s. J. M. Financial Institutional R. No. 608, 6th Floor, Securities Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, (Formerly known as J. M. Financial Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) 7th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 7079 C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar Respondent by : Dr. K. Shivaram Date of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2018 O R…