Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO

340 ITR 454High Court2012#1333 most cited

What is Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

When taxable income has escaped assessment, the assessee's plea that no fresh material is before the assessing officer to warrant reopening is not relevant.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO · 340 ITR 454 · reassessment · escaped assessment · section 147 · section 148 · fresh material for reopening · reopening assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Poshak Industries, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

ITA 332/CHNY/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Senthil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 251(1)

…th the revision order, dated 20.08.2008 were interest charged u/s.234B is "17,01,779/- as against earlier Revision order dated 30.11.2005 "8,97,165/-. The ld. Authorised Representative relied on the decision of Vijaya Kumar Saboo (HUF) and another vs. ACIT 340 ITR 382 (Kar) were held that ‘’After determination of tax under Sec. 143(1)(a) of the Act in regular assessment, and income declared by the assessee was accepted by the Department, thereafter, proceedings were initiated under sec. 147 of the Act and revised return was filed declaring enhanced income and interest u/s.234B of the Act shall be calculated…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Gopal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC38, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, D.R
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 234B

…the Act for the period prior to the finalization of original assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Vijay Kumar Saboo, HUF & Others. Vs. ACIT” 340 ITR 382. 8. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue. We find that as per sub section (3) of section 234 of the Act as it stood and applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay the interest, for the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub section (1) of s…

Gopal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC38, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, D.R
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 234B

…the Act for the period prior to the finalization of original assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Vijay Kumar Saboo, HUF & Others. Vs. ACIT” 340 ITR 382. 8. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue. We find that as per sub section (3) of section 234 of the Act as it stood and applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay the interest, for the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub section (1) of s…

ITO, Chengalput vs. Murugan Arul Enterprises, Chennai

ITA 2631/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. C.P.Ramaswami, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported as 291 ITR 500 and the - - 3 ITA 2631/14 decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Idea; Garden Complex P. Ltd., reported as 340 ITR 609. Consequent to the directions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) passed the order, impugned in the present appeal. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring income of ` 99,233/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 was issu…