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

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 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 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…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…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…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ect to compliance of claiming deduction u/s 80IC in the return of income filed u/s. 139(1) was not raised during the original assessment. The Ld DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT reported in (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC). It was also submitted that this is Revenue’s appeal and no grounds of appeal challenging the issue on merits has been raised by the Revenue and the grievance of the Revenue is that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IC was not filed by the assessee in return of income filed u/s 139(1) thereby infringing 80AC of the 1961 Act and was raised la…

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

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

ITA 4519/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

…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…

Indira Industries, Ranipet vs. ACIT, Vellore

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

ITA 1262/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Indira Industries, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Ranipet 632 403, Tamil Nadu. Circle 1, Vellore. [Pan: Aaafi2440N] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…easons for escapement of income under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment within the time prescribed in the Income Tax Act. 3.4 In the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), after exhaustively examining the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered its judgment in the context of section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, which is pari materia with the extant provision (section 147) are as under: “Section 34(1)(b) would apply to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct s…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

…sions 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 sec tion 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 farthe…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…sions 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 sec tion 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 farthe…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…aterial facts and hence the AO having sufficient material to form a belief that escapement of income chargeable to tax. 3.6 In this connection it is relevant to quote certain case laws which strengthen the above findings - i) Kalyanji Mavji & Co Vs CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) Section 34(1) contemplates two categories of cases for reopening the previous assessment: (1) where there has been an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment; and (2) where there has been no such omission on…

Bama Balasubramanyam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1981/CHNY/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1981/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 Ms. Bama Balasubramanyam, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 7, Old No. 5, Ii Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Business Circle 1/ Cit Nagar (East), Chennai 600 035. Dcit/Acit, Non Corporate Circle I Chennai. [Pan: Aajpb2978H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Awjit Rakshit, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Awjit Rakshit, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f assessment is 7 I.T.A. No.1981/M/16 not enough and he should be drew the attention of the Assessing Officer to all necessary material. 5.3 After exhaustively examining the issue of reopening of assessment, in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & CO. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered its judgement in the context of section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, which is pari materia with the extent provision (147) are as under: “Section 34(1)(b) would apply to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decis…

Sakthi Poultry Farm, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…the present, as the income escaping assessment exceeds ₹.1 lakh, the said condition is satisfied and therefore, the ground raised by the ld. Counsel cannot survive. 5.2 With regard to reopening of assessment, in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), after exhaustively examining the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered its judgment in the context of section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, which is pari materia with the extant provision (section 147) are as under: “Section 34(1)(b) would apply to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct…

Sakthi Poultry Farm, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…the present, as the income escaping assessment exceeds ₹.1 lakh, the said condition is satisfied and therefore, the ground raised by the ld. Counsel cannot survive. 5.2 With regard to reopening of assessment, in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), after exhaustively examining the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered its judgment in the context of section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, which is pari materia with the extant provision (section 147) are as under: “Section 34(1)(b) would apply to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct…

Kaivallya Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1148/CHNY/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Rangaraj, CITFor Respondent: 12.07.2017
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…, therefore, in the absence of any such caveat or condition in the provision, the ensuing assessment would only be a review, impermissible under the scheme of the Act (refer: 7 Kaivallya Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC); CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)). We, therefore, have no hesitation in, accepting the assessee’s Gds. 1 to 3, holding an absence of jurisdiction to assess and, consequently, the impugned assessment as bad in law. The other grounds, not pressed during hearing, are being not adjudicated inasmuch as they become unfructu…

Mayur P Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1640/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Mayur P Jain Income Tax Officer 1101 Chaitya Tower 81, Shivdas Ward No. 22(2)(2) Chapsi Marg, Mazgaon Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 010 Pan No. Aegpj1871E Appellant .. Respondent .. Dr. P Daniel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj) and also Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of 247 ITR (13) SC and 102 ITR 287 SC. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the original assessment was completed u/ s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-12-2011. Subsequently, due to audit objection the assessment was reopened for the reason that the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.18,97,450/- has not been…

Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

…n subsequent assessments, then reassessment proceedings does not amount to change of opinion. In support of the contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1976) 102 ITR 287. He further relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT-(A) and submitted that the assessee has not fully disclosed the facts in respect of depreciation on Government Authorizations and even misled the Assessing Officer by representing wrong facts that no asset more than Rs. 10 lakhs were acquired by the assessee during the relevant…

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

…ndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 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…

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

…ndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 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…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 1 of 34 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE च""मोहन गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Sanwaria Agroils Ltd. ACIT 1(1) Bhopal E-1/1 Arera Colony Bhopal v. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: AACSS 1449 N अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…umes jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 - ACIT vs. Tube Investment of Income Ltd. (ITAT Chennai TM) 133 ITD 79; Rajat Export Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135. As regards information for re-opening, it has been held in KalyanjiMavji & Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287, that information may come from external sources or even from material already on record or may be derived from the discovery of new and important matter or fresh fact. Word - "information" would also include true and correct state of law derived from relevant judicial decisions either of the Income Tax authorities or Courts of law. And reliance…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…n 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) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true…