Limited v. DY CIT

11 Taxmann.com 76High Court2011#9260 most cited

What is Limited v. DY CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer's belief is not based on new tangible material not available during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot reopen a case on the same issues that were already considered and discussed in the original assessment.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Lalitha Chem · Limited v. DY CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reason to believe · tangible material · original assessment · disallowance · sec 80IB · bad debts

Also reported as

364 ITR 213

Issues it is cited on

r&d expendituresection 37transferpersoncompanysection 14section 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing Limited v. DY CIT

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 54/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…e Ld. AR submits that Proviso to Section 147 applied and the notice is time barred. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of various High Courts including the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Tribunal in cases of E Infochips 99 taxmann.com 84 (Guj), Lalitha Chem 364 ITR 213 (Bom) , Ashok Pesticides 49 SOT 98 (Ahd), Jivraj Tea Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 298 (Guj), Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (2021) 129 taxmann.com 258 (Guj). The Ld. AR further submitted that specific questions were raised by the Assessing Officer and answers were given at the time of scrutiny by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also made certain disa…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1867/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…e Ld. AR submits that Proviso to Section 147 applied and the notice is time barred. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of various High Courts including the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Tribunal in cases of E Infochips 99 taxmann.com 84 (Guj), Lalitha Chem 364 ITR 213 (Bom) , Ashok Pesticides 49 SOT 98 (Ahd), Jivraj Tea Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 298 (Guj), Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (2021) 129 taxmann.com 258 (Guj). The Ld. AR further submitted that specific questions were raised by the Assessing Officer and answers were given at the time of scrutiny by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also made certain disa…

Khed Economic Infrastructure Pvt Ld, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 923/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reason to believe must be based on some new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing the original Assessment Order as held in the case of Lalitha Chem Industries {P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 451/225 Taxman 225 (Mag.)/364 ITR 213 (Bom.).” 5.1. Their lordships’ recent decisions in Rajshree Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India and Others [2023] 457 ITR 354 (Bom.) and in Jetair (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 185 (Bom.) also reiterate the very legal preposition. 6. The outcome would be hardly any different in the last assessment year 2013-2014’s appeal ITA.No.9…

Khed Economic Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 925/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reason to believe must be based on some new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing the original Assessment Order as held in the case of Lalitha Chem Industries {P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 451/225 Taxman 225 (Mag.)/364 ITR 213 (Bom.).” 5.1. Their lordships’ recent decisions in Rajshree Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India and Others [2023] 457 ITR 354 (Bom.) and in Jetair (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 185 (Bom.) also reiterate the very legal preposition. 6. The outcome would be hardly any different in the last assessment year 2013-2014’s appeal ITA.No.9…

Khed Economic Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 924/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reason to believe must be based on some new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing the original Assessment Order as held in the case of Lalitha Chem Industries {P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 451/225 Taxman 225 (Mag.)/364 ITR 213 (Bom.).” 5.1. Their lordships’ recent decisions in Rajshree Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India and Others [2023] 457 ITR 354 (Bom.) and in Jetair (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 185 (Bom.) also reiterate the very legal preposition. 6. The outcome would be hardly any different in the last assessment year 2013-2014’s appeal ITA.No.9…

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.150/Bang/2017 & 320/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Ramanagar District ACIT LTU Circle-1 Vs. Bngalore 562 109 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT5415B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEM…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alstom India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, assessee’s cross objection is dismissed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 DCIT – 1(1)(1), vs. M/s. Alstom India Ltd., Mumbai. (Appellant) (Formerly Alstom Project India Ltd.) The International, 5th floor, 16, New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA8679F (Respondent) CO NO. 71/MUM/2015 : A.Y : 2010-11 (in ITA NO. 1727/MUM/2015) M/s. Alstom India Ltd., vs. ITO – 1(1)(1), The International, 5th floor, 16, Mumbai. (Respondent/ New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Orig. Appellant) Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA867…

L3 Communications India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1938/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1938/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2013-14 L3 Communications India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Level 02, Baghmane Laurel, Block B Circle-4(1)(1), Baghmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. CV Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560 093. PAN – AABCC 3536 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 10.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2019 O R D E R Per B…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2686/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2686/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd Income-Tax, Bhadraraj Chambers, Nr. Swastik Circle 4(1)(1), Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaccs 0988 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri Tp Hemani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)-8, Ahmedabad Dated 1St September 2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Revenue Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,89,36,781/- Which Was Made By The Assessing Officer On The Recommendation Of Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In The Value Of International Transactions Of The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Ae).

For Appellant: Shri TP Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr DR
Section 92C

…ble comparable and ALP can be determined on that basis. Excerpt from CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2007-08 (p.232 of P/B): "It has also been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Haworth (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (OSD) in ITA No. 5341/Delhi/2010 reported in 11 Taxmann.com 76 (2011) that even if there is only one DCIT Vs Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd For AY: 2011-12 5 good comparable case, the same can be taken as suitable comparable and Arms-Length Price can be determined on that basis." 7.2. Based on this revised comparable, the position can be tabulated as under: Description Amount in Rs Operating Revenue as p…

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee company are allowed

ITA 5383/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5383/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 221/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 1OSection 271Section 35(1)(vi)

…dia Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); b) ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 299 (SC); c) CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom); ITA 5383/M/12 & ITA 221/M/14 10 d) Lalitha Chem Industries P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 364 ITR 213 (Bom) e) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom); f) ACIT v. ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 41 CCH 162 (Mum)(Trib); g) Shri Sunil Gavaskar [ITA No. 3970 & 3971IMuml20 1 0] at paras 11.4 to 11.7 on pages 16 to 18; On merits, he submitted that this issue stands squarely covered by various decisions, some of which have be…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at Kearney Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5575/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ADIT, AT Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AADCA0861H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 74/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 5574/Del/2012) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) AT Kearney Ltd, ADIT, 357, H-9, Vardhman Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, Vs. Corporate Plaza, Room No. 204, Netaji Subhash Marg, Drum Shape Building, Pitam…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S at Kearney Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5574/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ADIT, AT Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AADCA0861H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 74/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 5574/Del/2012) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) AT Kearney Ltd, ADIT, 357, H-9, Vardhman Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, Vs. Corporate Plaza, Room No. 204, Netaji Subhash Marg, Drum Shape Building, Pitam…

Limited v. DY CIT (11 Taxmann.com 76) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax