Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

298 ITR 32High Court2008#7550 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 11Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 147(proviso)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)true and full disclosurefull and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatorsection 80ibmere change of opinionlive linkchange of opinionsection 80iatangible materialregular assessment

Judgments citing Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5th floor, 3rd floor Maker Chamber IV, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAACR 5055 K Appellant Respondent CO No. 153/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Reliance Industries Ltd., ACIT, Circle-3(4), 3rd floor Maker Chamber IV, Room No. 559, 5th floor, Aayakar Nariman Point, S.O. Vs. Bhavan, New…

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…pellant further submitted that not a single cash payment has been 5 made exceeding the limit of Rs 20000 specified in Section 40A(3) The appellant also placed strong reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in IL&FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 32. The appellant also submitted that there is no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The appellant submitted that it is a mere change of opinion, and AO had no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 5.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant a…

WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT - 5 , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER World Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT -5 4th Floor, WTP, JLN Room No. 515, 5th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 MK Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCR8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Sahai.AR Respondent by : Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Pr.…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. CIT (E),, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/ALLD/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi17 Jan 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Varanasi Development Authority, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pannalal Park, Raja Udai Pratap (Exemption), Lucknow Marg, Katchary, Varanasi Pan-Aaatv6811A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 43B

…hus based on the judicial pronouncements mentioned hereinabove, the reassessment proceedings are void ab-initio on this score. …… …… The ruling in the case of IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. v. ITO- In the case of IL&FS Investment Managers Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 32 the Bombay High Court also quashed the notice under section 148, as it was found that the ld had disagreed with audit objection and still reopening was sought to be done as a result of change of his previous opinion. …… …… That as already stated in Ground No.2, most of the cases cited by the Assessing Officers in his / her rejection order to the o…

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…Income-tax Act does not contemplate such powers in any internal audit organization of the Income-tax Department but only in those authorities which are specifically authorized to exercise adjudicatory functions.” > In IL&FS Investment Managers V. ITO (2008) (298 ITR 32) (Bom.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that claims allowed disagreeing with the audit objections and therefore issuance of notice under section 148 subsequently was not valid. > In the case of ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) (210 Taxman 67) (Bom.)), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court in our cas…

DY CIT-CC-6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARATHON NEXTGEN REALTY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…e of opinion is unsustainable. To support his argument the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee inter-alia placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom) (iii) Trent Ltd. vs. DCIT, 135 taxmann.com 222(Bom) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 382 ITR 574(Bom) 5.4. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee summed up his arguments supporting the impugned order and stated that the CIT(A) has rightly held reassessment proceedings are bad in law for the reasons: (i) Reopening is based o…

DY CIT, CC-6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARATHON NEXTGEN REALTY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…e of opinion is unsustainable. To support his argument the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee inter-alia placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom) (iii) Trent Ltd. vs. DCIT, 135 taxmann.com 222(Bom) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 382 ITR 574(Bom) 5.4. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee summed up his arguments supporting the impugned order and stated that the CIT(A) has rightly held reassessment proceedings are bad in law for the reasons: (i) Reopening is based o…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…349 ITR 656 (Bom) 8. Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd, 314 ITR 236(Guj) 9. Jal Hotels Co. Ltd, 184 Taxman 1 (Del) 10. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd, 296 ITR 342(Del) 11. Goetze Ltd. 321 ITR 431 (Del) 12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 325 ITR 471 (Bom) 15. Siemens Information. 295 ITR 333 (Bom) 16. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 200(Mad) 17. Bhavesh Developers, 229 CTR 160(Bom) 18. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. JCIT: 245 ITR 645 (Cal) 19. Mercury Travels Ltd.. Vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 533 (Cal.) 20. Berger Paints India Ltd., Vs. ACIT: 322…

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 756/IND/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80Section 80I

…[ITA No.756/Ind/2019] [Ganpat Pannalal ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Ganpat Pannalal ITO-1 Main Road, Harda Harda बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AAFFM4284P Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 18.05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 05.04.2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following…

ASST CIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. NANAVATI CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2424/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…t with the legal issues. In this regard, the position of law is well settled by many judgments coming from various High Courts. We find support of our view from the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in !LA and FS Investments Managers Ltd. v/s ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom.) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that where the AO himself disagreed with the audit objection, under such circumstances, there could not have been valid basis to reopen the already concluded assessment. This judgment has been recently followed again by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to reiterate this point in the case…

SH. SOURABH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(3), LUDHIANA

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

ITA 699/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…AR MILLS LTD, 2011-TIOL-293-HC-DEL-IT. Reopening on the basis of an opinion formed by the internal auditor of the department, cannot be treated valid because it amounts to change of opinion. In the case of IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors (2008) 298 ITR 32 (Bom) Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanwala (HUF) vs. ITO & Ors (2006) 287 ITR 443 (Bom) AO having allowed assessee's claim in the regular assessment and reopened the assessment pursuant to audit objection, it cannot be said that he had formed his own opinion that the income had escaped assessment, and the reopening being based on mere change of opinion, sam…

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

…tion. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxmann 67 (Bom.), IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 293 ITR 271 (Bom.). Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book. On the other hand, Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, Ld. CIT-DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material avai…

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

…tion. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxmann 67 (Bom.), IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 293 ITR 271 (Bom.). Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book. On the other hand, Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, Ld. CIT-DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material avai…

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMELRY ZEE TELEFILMS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7005/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Kishnadwala & Jay Bhansali –ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई “ जी” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.7005/Mum/2012 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 वष" Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. ADIT-Range-11(1) Room No.467, 4th Floor (Formerly Zee Telefilms…

SUNIL GAVASKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80RSection 8O

…. In this regard, the position of law is well settled by many judgments 9 Shri Sunil Gavaskar coming from various High Courts. We find support of our view from the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in IL And FS Investments Managers Ltd. v/s ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom.) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that where the AO himself disagreed with the audit objection, under such circumstances, there could not have been valid basis to reopen the already concluded assessment. This judgment has been recently followed again by Hon’ble Bombay High Court to reiterate this point in the case…