Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT

35 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1959#2867 most cited

What is Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT authority for?

An assessing officer cannot reopen an assessment if the discovery of escaped income is merely an error found upon reconsideration of the same material, as this does not grant the power to reassess.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT · section 147 · section 148 · section 34(1) · reopening assessment · escaped assessment · mere change of opinion · reconsideration of same material · beyond four years · power to reassess · Kelvinator principle

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)section 34(1)section 148(2)first proviso to section 147beyond four yearskelvinatormlimere change of opinionsection 34source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorchange of opinion

Judgments citing Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…d assessment it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC)(SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 35. In A. L. A.…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect,…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect,…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect,…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect,…

Sapna Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1468/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.’ 4. This view has been…

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1467/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.’ 4. This view has been…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh V. CIT (1959)35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT V. A.Raman and Co. (1968)67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Th…

Sahara Housingfine Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kol., Kolkata

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

ITA 504/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.’ 4. This view has been…

Venkata Sai Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1624/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…6 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 831(SC) xv. Mukesh Modi vs. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 418 (Raj.) 9. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. We have heard the rival arguments ma…

Vasu Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1623/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…6 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 831(SC) xv. Mukesh Modi vs. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 418 (Raj.) 9. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. We have heard the rival arguments ma…

Vasu Pharma Distributors, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1622/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…6 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 831(SC) xv. Mukesh Modi vs. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 418 (Raj.) 9. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. We have heard the rival arguments ma…

M/S. Sharada Paper Company, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11 (4), Pune

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

ITA 1547/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

…the Supreme Court regarding construction of a particular statutory provisions comes to the notice of an ITO, it constitutes information as envisaged by section 147 of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT[1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 461 (SC) and V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC). 11. The last submission of Mr. Jain has simply to be stated to be rejected. If certain set of facts can form the subject-matter for action under two separate and different statutory provisions, it is for the competent auth…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 421/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.K. ShridharFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…umstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the CIT(A) orders that the reassessment proceedings are not valid?” The Hon‟ble High Court by referring to decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh Vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) which held that the word 'information' in section 34(1)(b) includes information as to the true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions. The Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held the decision come to the knowledge of Income Tax Officer after the assessment is made is an information within…

Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 331/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.K. ShridharFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…umstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the CIT(A) orders that the reassessment proceedings are not valid?” The Hon‟ble High Court by referring to decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh Vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) which held that the word 'information' in section 34(1)(b) includes information as to the true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions. The Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held the decision come to the knowledge of Income Tax Officer after the assessment is made is an information within…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…d assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh V. CIT (1959)35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT V. A.Raman and Co. (1968)67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Th…

M/S. Bharti Cellular Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.735/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. Dy.CIT (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) Circle-2(1), Bharti Crescent 1, Vs. New Delhi. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110 070 PAN-AAACB 2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Bhalla, CA Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 12.04.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Cit [ 1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [ 1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [ 1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied)…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Cit [ 1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [ 1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [ 1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied)…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…om the material which was with him but was not acted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the…

Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT (35 ITR 1) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax