ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. v. CIT

296 ITR 603High Court2008#11725 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10BSection 139Section 142Section 150(1)

Issues it is cited on

beyond four yearsmere change of opinionchange of opinionreason to believeescapement of incomereopening of assessmentreassessment proceedingssection 148section 147section 143section 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. v. CIT

SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 22, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Foramer France, [2003] 264 ITR 566, as well as this court judgment reported in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd., [2006] 286 ITR 674 and came to the correct conclusion." (Emphasis Supplied) (d) CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 718/[2008] 296 ITR 603 (Mad.) "6. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and held as follows: "But whether recourse to section 147 could be made beyond four years is the real question in the present appeal. Circumstances for extending limitation beyond four years do not exist in the facts of the present case. As such on the ground of limitation assumpti…

THARMARAJ GOPI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1st Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [PAN: AKQPG3889D] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Y.Sri…

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

…uly all material facts necessary for the Assessment, no reopening is permissible u/s 147/148 21. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs ELGI ULTRA INDUSTRIES LTD (296 ITR 573 Mad) as well as CIT vs A.V.THOMAS EXPORTS LTD (296 ITR 603 Mad) which are squarely applicable to the case on hand of the Appellant/Assessee. STAX DEXH 22. In the Notice u/s 148 dated 24th August 2012 as well as the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 20th February 2014, the AO has not referred to any "tangible & fresh material" that has come into his possession on the basis of which he has entertained a belief that…

ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(8), NEW DELHI

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 19867 of Section 147. 13. In the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v.A.V.Thomas Exports Ltd. [(2008) 296 ITR 603 (Mad)], which pertains to Assessment Year 1990-1991, the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the appeal filed by the Revenue, had observed that the initiation of proceedings was after a period of four years by reason of failure on the part of the assessee and as such, there was no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under the prov…

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

…CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) 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 i…

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

…CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) 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 i…

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

…CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) 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 i…

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

…CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) 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 i…

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

…CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) 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 i…