Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO

286 ITR 618High Court2006#9661 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 144BSection 147Section 14ASection 42Section 143(3)Section 8DSection 148

Issues it is cited on

section 42material facts necessary for assessmentbeyond four yearsmere change of opinionchange of opinionregular assessmentdisallowance u/s 14areopening of assessmentsection 37(1)section 115jbcommissioner (appeals)section 37

Judgments citing Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1254/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

…hen learned AO has already disallowed Rs. 3,57,11,381/- u/s 14A r.wr. BD of the Act while passing order u/s 143(3) of the act and the same issue is pending before Hon'ble ITAT and hence in view of the decisions in case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618, Bombay HC and Chika Overseas (P) Ltd v ITO (2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum) (Tribunal), re-opening cannot be made for issue which is subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permiss…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1249/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

…hen learned AO has already disallowed Rs. 3,57,11,381/- u/s 14A r.wr. BD of the Act while passing order u/s 143(3) of the act and the same issue is pending before Hon'ble ITAT and hence in view of the decisions in case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618, Bombay HC and Chika Overseas (P) Ltd v ITO (2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum) (Tribunal), re-opening cannot be made for issue which is subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permiss…

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1166/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

…hen learned AO has already disallowed Rs. 3,57,11,381/- u/s 14A r.wr. BD of the Act while passing order u/s 143(3) of the act and the same issue is pending before Hon'ble ITAT and hence in view of the decisions in case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618, Bombay HC and Chika Overseas (P) Ltd v ITO (2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum) (Tribunal), re-opening cannot be made for issue which is subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permiss…

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1165/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

…hen learned AO has already disallowed Rs. 3,57,11,381/- u/s 14A r.wr. BD of the Act while passing order u/s 143(3) of the act and the same issue is pending before Hon'ble ITAT and hence in view of the decisions in case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618, Bombay HC and Chika Overseas (P) Ltd v ITO (2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum) (Tribunal), re-opening cannot be made for issue which is subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permiss…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST

Appeal stands dismissed and the connected

ITAT/186/2023HC Calcutta26 Sept 2023

Bench: The Assessing Officer In The Course Of The Proceedings Subsequent To The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19Th April, 2023. 2. During The Pendency Of The Proceedings The Assessment Has Been Completed & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On 13.03.2025 Which Is Sought To Be Brought

For Appellant: Mr. Pranit Bag, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 154

…ssioner of Income-tax reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com 424 (Karnataka) and also for the other propositions reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Metro Auto Corporation –versus- Income-tax Officer and Others reported in (2006) 286 ITR 618 and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. –versus- Income-tax Officer reported in (2023) 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi). Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. S.M. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – versus- Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal Nos.3612-3613 of 201…

STANDARD TELE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the following counts: The impugned matter was the subject matter of appeal and i. thus as per 3rd proviso to section 147 such matter could not be taken into for the purpose of the reopening as held in the case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. ITO & Ors., (2006) 286 ITR 618 (Bom). There was no income which was chargeable to tax in the ii. instant case as the above orders would show that the expenses were part of closing Work In Progress and in this year there was no income resulting. iii. It has been mentioned in the ‘reason’ recorded (PB 29-31) that Mr. J L Kesarwani, director of the M/s Dingle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.…

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.13 of the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2338/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate And Shri Ashish Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

…The A.O. recorded the reasons just to protect the interests of Revenue, otherwise, there were no escapement of income in the case of the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metro Auto Corporation vs., ITO 286 ITR 618 (Bom.) in which “notice has been issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner pointed-out that when proceedings filed by the Department are pending and when the order impugned in the appeal before the Tribunal is in favour of the assessee, notice under section 148 that the 8 ITA.No.2338/Del./2017 Shri Vijay Kumar a…

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHEILA SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 554/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…epted by the revenue and the Assessing Officer has filed an appeal against the same. While the matter was pending before the ITAT, the assessments were re-opened. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metro Auto Corporation v. Income-tax Officer [2006] 286 ITR 618 (Bombay), considered a similar situation and held as follows:- “Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, points out that the decision of the Commissioner is not on facts and it is only on the ground that the valid notice under section 143(2) was not issued before the expiry of the period of limitation. Be that as it may, the fact…

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NIRMALENDU SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 23/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…epted by the revenue and the Assessing Officer has filed an appeal against the same. While the matter was pending before the ITAT, the assessments were re-opened. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metro Auto Corporation v. Income-tax Officer [2006] 286 ITR 618 (Bombay), considered a similar situation and held as follows:- “Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, points out that the decision of the Commissioner is not on facts and it is only on the ground that the valid notice under section 143(2) was not issued before the expiry of the period of limitation. Be that as it may, the fact…

BASANTI JEEVANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…at. The disallowance of investment made u/s 54 of the Act has been challenged before us. The ld. counsel relied upon following judicial decisions:- i. Allana Sons Ltd. vs ACIT (2015) 230 taxman 436(Bom.) ii. Metro Auto Corporation vs Income Tax Officer (2006) 286 ITR 618 (Bom.) iii. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. vs ACIT (37 DTR 259) iv. CIT vs Flothern Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) (225 taxman 223)(Mag.)(Mad.) 2.1. On the other hand, ld. DR, Shri B.D. Naik, defended the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) by stating that the investment was not made by the assessee within the stipulat…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

…tion under Section 80-I, the Assessing Officer had no authority to re-assess the deduction under Section 80-I by exercise of his powers under Section 147 as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Metro Auto Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer, (2006) 286 ITR 618 (Bom). In the said case, the first appellate authority deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the revenue took up the matter in second appeal before the appellate tribunal. Despite the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee company under Section 148 of the Act. On these…

Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO (286 ITR 618) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax