Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT

340 ITR 299High Court2012#5523 most cited

What is Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment beyond four years based on an error on their part, unless the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd · ACIT · reassessment · reopening assessment · failure to disclose · primary facts · jurisdictional condition · section 147 · beyond four years · error of AO

Judgments citing Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…on the basis of which it was found that the assessee had not fully disclosed the\nprimary facts or had falsified or disclosed incorrect primary facts—Hence, Tribunal rightly set\naside the reassessment order\n(vii) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.),\nReassessment Full and true disclosure—Notice after expiry of four years-Jurisdictional\ncondition under s.147 in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year—\nAssessee had brought the primary facts to the noti…

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…TR 313 (Bom) • HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) 5.1.12 As observed above, at the time of original assessment, the assessing observed above, at the time of original assessment, the assessing observed above, at the time of original assessment, the assessing officer had made categorical remark of having examined details. The a…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…s, the appeal preferred by the Revenue has rightly been dismissed as having become infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (iii) DCIT v/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Yuvraj Vs UOI [2009] 315 ITR 8…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…s, the appeal preferred by the Revenue has rightly been dismissed as having become infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (iii) DCIT v/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Yuvraj Vs UOI [2009] 315 ITR 8…

SMT RUCHIKA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…elvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 264 (Raj) (iii) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) (iv) DCIT Vs Purolator (2012) 343 ITR 155 (Del) (v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom) (vi) Desai Bros Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bom) (vii) Bhot Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom) (viii) CIT (Addl.) Vs. IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del) (ix) CIT Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.). For the addition, it was contended by the ld AR that reopening was not valid applying the proposition of law…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2234/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2232/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2231/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1801/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…t in the case of Usha International Ltd. [25 taxmann.com 200]. The assessee also relied on the decisions of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 18], ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 299] and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of E-lnfochips Ltd. [99 taxmann.com 84]. 23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment as evident from the reasons of reopening. Hence the reopening is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…isclose fully and truly all material facts. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice of the ITO would be without jurisdiction. 3.17] Reliance is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd, -vs.- ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299{Bom), wherein it has been held that the assessee having disclosed during the assessment proceedings the fact that under an MoU with a Swiss company lender the outstanding loan was settled at Swiss Francs 4,80,000 as against the outstanding balance of 8,00,000 Swiss Francs and that it has written back an amount of Rs. 1.10 crores equivalent to swi…

ACIT 31(1), MUMBAI vs. GUNDECHA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4266/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…CIT (2011) 59 DTR 281 (Bom) g) Shrlrsm Foundry Ltd v. Dy.CJT(2012) 250 CTR 116 (Bom.) h) ' Monitor India (P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) i) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Ddhi)(High Court) j) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACJT(2012) 340 ITR 299'(Bom.) k) Weilntertrade (P) Ltd &Anr vs. JTO (2009) 308 ITR 22 7. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, strongly supported order of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the AO has validly reopened the assessment on the basis of audit objection memo received for earlier years which suggests escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, on a…

FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 393/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 393/Ch/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Fls Automation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

For Appellant: ShriG. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…erial facts necessary for the assessment. The initiation of re-assessment without any fresh evidence amounts to change of opinion and hence the re-assessment is bad in law. In this regard, the AR invited our attention to the ratios reported in 320 ITR 361, 340 ITR 299, 378 ITR 547& 369 ITR 209. He further submitted that the reassessment made on the ground different from reasons recorded in notice is not valid. In this regard, he invited our attention to para 11 of the reassessment order and relied on the ratios reported in 331 ITR 236, 349 ITR 482 and 372 ITR 762. He has also relied on the Board Circular No 3…

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

…Bom.), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.). The whole case in the present appeal pertains to disallowance u/s 40(A)(ia) of the Act, which pertains to alleged non-payment of tax deducted at source within the time prescribed limit. The totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, clearly says that the tax so deducted can be deposited in the state exchequer within the time presc…

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

…Bom.), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.). The whole case in the present appeal pertains to disallowance u/s 40(A)(ia) of the Act, which pertains to alleged non-payment of tax deducted at source within the time prescribed limit. The totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, clearly says that the tax so deducted can be deposited in the state exchequer within the time presc…

DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE TATA FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…09 & CO No.201/M/2012) ii) DCIT v Aristocrat Luggage Ltd. (ITA No.5422/M/2013) (ITAT Mumbai) iii) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom.) iv) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom.) v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings V. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom.) vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) vii) IPCA Laboratories Ltd v DCIT (251 ITR 416) (Bom.) viii) Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161)(Bom) ix) ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203)(Bom.) x) CIT v Daimler Chrysler India (P.) Ltd. (33 taxmann. com 419)(Bom) xi) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCII (346 ITR 355)(Bom.) 7 T…

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS TATA ENGG & LOCOMOTIVE CO.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result the ground of appeal raised in Cross objections is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 3600/MUM/2011[20001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…1 (SC). The ld AR for assessee also filed the list on the following decision for his relience. i. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom). ii. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom). iii. Kimpas Trenton Fittings v. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom). iv. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407)(Bom). v. IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (251 ITR 4160(Bom.). vi. Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). vii. ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203) (Bom.) viii. NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 355) (Bom). ix. Bhavesh Developers v. AO (188 Taxman 123)(Bom.) x. Tata Internatio…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.), thus, considering the totality of facts and the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judicial decisions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 18/05/2016. (R…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT (340 ITR 299) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax