ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd. v. CIT

345 ITR 91High Court2012#6470 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd. v. CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BENGALURU vs. G. TEX INC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 789/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Hita M., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

…) 67 taxmann.com 201 (Karn) ii. CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 220 of 2009 dated 15.12.2014 (Karn.) iii. CIT v. Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO. 310 fo 2015 dated 22.09.2015 (Karn.) iv. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom) v. CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Gujarat) vi. Dr. Wilmar Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 428 (Delhi) 5.2 In view of the above submissions, the ld. A.R. submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and consequently all subsequent…

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R
Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 220 of 2009 dated 15.12.2014 (Karn.) The United Theological College, Bangalore Page 13 of 16 iii. CIT v. Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO. 310 fo 2015 dated 22.09.2015 (Karn.) iv. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom) v. CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Gujarat) vi. Dr. Wilmar Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 428 (Delhi) 4.12 In view of the above submissions, the ld. A.R. submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 rws 148 of the Act and consequently all subsequent p…

M/S. GOKULDAS EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1062/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…upport of his argument the learned A.R. relied on the following judgements: - 5 M/s. Gokaldas Exports “i) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) ii) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii) Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.) iv) Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd v. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 48 (Bombay) v) Hindustan Level Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) vi) CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Guj.) vii) CIT v. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. in ITA No. 406/2007 dated 19.09.2011 viii) CIT v. M/s. Fibres & Fabrics Internationa! Pvt. Ltd. in ITA…

M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that inform…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 5, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that inform…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that inform…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that inform…

KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that inform…

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KOTARKI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

WA/842/2018HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

…le Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] and the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [(2012) 345 ITR 91]. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Sanmathi E.I., contended the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the notice dated 15.3.2016 by holding that the notice was issued on account of 'change of opinion', it was not so. Th…

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ESTEEM CLASSIC

ITA/842/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

…le Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] and the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [(2012) 345 ITR 91]. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Sanmathi E.I., contended the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the notice dated 15.3.2016 by holding that the notice was issued on account of 'change of opinion', it was not so. Th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Add.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ts. Fact of failure has not been mentioned in the reasons. Thus, the reopening was done without application of mind. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • Arvind Remedies Ltd [2015] 378 ITR 547 (Mad). • Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 91 (Bom) ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 6 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) • Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 70 (Guj) 8. It was further submitted that the details on the basis of which reasons were framed were duly placed on record during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and only after duly cons…

ARIES AGRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…) 268 ITR 332. The assessee has relied upon following case laws:- “Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT [2004]-268 ITR 332 {Bom} Titanor Components vs. ACIT [2011]-60 DTR 273 {Bom} Sound Casting Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 250 CTR 119 {Bom} Sitara Diamond Pvt.Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 91 {Bom} Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 154 [Bom] Prashant Joshi vs. ITO-324 ITR 154 [Bom] Similarly, as regards deduction claimed u/s 35D, the assessee has filed written submission and argued that its claim of expenditure related to share issue expenses is in accordance with provision of section 35D and accordingly, the AO…

SHRI AJAY WAHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…iso to section 147 of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Remedies Ltd., 378 ITR 547 (Mad.) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Sitara Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT , 345 ITR 91 (Bom.). The ld. A/R has pointed out that it was clear to the AO that assessee was only a power of attorney holder and he was not the owner of the plots of land, therefore, there could not be any escapement of income in his hands. Hence the assessee could not be said to have failed to disclose fully and truly all relevant material necessary for as…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…1) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is pro…

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…1) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is pro…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…1) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is pro…

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…1) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is pro…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…1) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is pro…