M/s BIC Cello India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

475 ITR 463High Court2025#25091 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,375 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 153C Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 139 Section 143(3)

Judgments citing M/s BIC Cello India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Kundan Jewellers Private Limited, Gandhi Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

…s of bank statements duly furnished by assessee during course of assessment proceedings, there was non-application of mind by Assessing Officer and thus, impugned reopening notice was void ab initio. BIC CELLO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT as reported in (2025) 475 ITR 463 (Bom) "Notice based on erroneous fact…… in our view if the reasons for reopening the assessment are based on incorrect facts or conclusions, certainly the notice issued for reopening cannot be sustained. ITO vs. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust as reported in (2016) 158 ITD 965 (CHD). "Where Assessing Officer processed under section 1…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Kapil Thapar, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

ITA 246/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

…assessee for a consideration of Rs. 18.75 crore. 9.1 The detailed 'Brief Synopsis' have been submitted in this regard and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'M/s BIC Cello India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT', reported in 475 ITR 463 (SC) and to other case of Bombay High Court in the case of 'Ankita A. Choksey Vs ITO', reported in 411 ITR 207, besides the cases of Jurisdictional Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of 'Kissan Fats Limited in ITA No. 407/Chd/2023' and in the case of 'M/s Fortune Metaliks Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No.1090/Chd/2019' and also on the latest judgment…

Income Tax Officer, Mohali Punjab vs. Taj Land Developefrs and Promoters Private Limited, Sector Mohali Punjab

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 1Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e assessee in the said return ?" AO has observed that return was not filed. Therefore, 1d.CIT(A) has rightly quashed the re-opening of the assessment. He relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BIC Cello (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 475 ITR 463, Tata Sons Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 137 taxmann.com 414 and Ankita A. Choksey Vs ITO reported in 411 ITR 207 (Bombay High Court). Apart from these judgements, he has relied upon a large number of other orders of the ITAT which are placed on the Paper Book running into 192 pages. Index of the Paper Book reads as under : S. No. PARTICULARS PAGES R…