Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

78 ITR 466Supreme Court of India1970#4542 most cited

What is Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee has a duty to disclose all material facts truly and fully for assessment; the assessing officer's potential diligence does not absolve the assessee of this duty.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT · 78 ITR 466 · duty to disclose · material facts · full and true disclosure · escapement of income · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

mere change of opinionchange of opinionescapement of incomereopening of assessmentnotice under section 148section 142reassessment proceedingssection 142(1)section 148section 143(2)section 15section 147

Judgments citing Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…could have found out the truth, the ITO may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment." To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed : "It is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value real…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…could have found out the truth, the ITO may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment." To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed : "It is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value real…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. Hazi Amir Moh. Mir Ahmed Vs CIT, Amritsar (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta & others Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. Malegon Electricity Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT , Bombay (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd vs. ITO, Companies Dist I Calcutta and another (SC) 41 ITR 191. In this case, on verification of statement of income by the Assessing Officer, it has been found that the income from Malaysian Branch amounting to ₹55,92,897/- was not included in the return of income filed by the assessee. From the annual and director’s…