Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 10(23C), Section 11, Section 11(4A).

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Q: How many judgments cite Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another (324 ITR 54), spanning 2016 to 2026.

324 ITR 54High Court2010#3034 most cited

What is Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another authority for?

An assessment for an earlier year can be reopened based on a finding of fact made from fresh material discovered during the assessment for a subsequent year. This is permissible even if the earlier assessment involved a full and true disclosure.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India · 324 ITR 54 · section 147 · reassessment · fresh material · subsequent assessment year · full and true disclosure · escaped income · reason to believe · audit · prima facie

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 11(4A)Section 12 Section 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 40(1)section 102 section 4(2)section 32a full and true disclosure section 147(a)material facts necessary for assessment fresh tangible material section 10(23c)(vi)mere change of opinion kelvinator

Judgments citing Multi Screen Media P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…t be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K. R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the Bombay High Court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under: "where the AO purports to exercise power under 1.147 within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power is the 9 OM KOTHA…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…me chargeable to tax has escaped assessment then jurisdiction is conferred upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment". As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2010] 7 taxmann.com 38/324 ITR 54 (Bom.), "the expression "reason to believe" must obviously be that of a prudent person and it is on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that the question as to whether there was a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, has to be determined. At the same time, the sufficiency of the reasons for reopening an asse…

M/S. Gokuldas Exports, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1062/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…judgements: - 5 M/s. Gokaldas Exports “i) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) ii) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii) Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.) iv) Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd v. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 48 (Bombay) v) Hindustan Level Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) vi) CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Guj.) vii) CIT v. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. in ITA No. 406/2007 dated 19.09.2011 viii) CIT v. M/s. Fibres & Fabrics Internationa! Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 310/2015 dated 22.09.2015 ix) ACIT v. Kotarki Constructions…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…uiries with the assessee. 7. He relied on the following decisions  (1999) 236 ITR (SC.) Raymond Wollen Ltd.  (2020) 247 ITR 818 (SC.)Ess Ess Kay Engg.Co. P vs. CIT  159 ITR 956 (SC.) I.O.C. Vs. ITO  (1993) 203 ITR (SC) — Phool Chand Bajrang Lal. vs. ITO  324 ITR 54 (Bom.) Multiscreen Media Pvt. Ltd.  (2010) 329 ITR 28 (Del.) — Diwakar Engineers Ltd. vs. ITO  225 ITR 495 (Del.) — Rakesh Aggarwal 8. The Ld. Standing Counsel also placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Pr.DIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 340. The Ld. Standing Counsel further submitt…

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…the period of four years and hence reassessment was barred by limitation. h) Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being jurisdictional High Court in our case, in the case of Multiscreen Media P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India (324 ITR 48) (Bom.) wherein it was held that, the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act did not state that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the relevant 12 assessment year. The assessment was sought to be reopened after the expiry of period of four years from the end o…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for that assessment and therefore, the reopening action was valid. The CIT DR placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [2010] 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) – High Court of Bombay b) New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2017] 84 taxmann.com 136 (Delhi), High Court of Delhi 11 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 c) Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, [2006] 151 Taxman 41 (Delhi), High Court of Delhi d) Jayant Security & F…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…228 CTR 121 (Del) 40. Ashok Mittal, 224 Taxman 55 (Del) 41. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Del) 42. Sheo Nath Singh. 82 ITR 148 (SC) document1 43. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd, 130 ITR 1. 11 (SC) 44. Birla VXL, 217 ITR 1 (Gujrat) 45. Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) 46. Garden Finance Limited, 268 ITR 48(Guj) 47. Kamlesh Sharma, 287 ITR 337 (Del) 48. Allana Cold Storage Ltd.. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) 49. Asian Paints Limited, 296 ITR 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC L…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 2333/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 1 of 55 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI „I‟ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2006-07 Renu T Tharani ……………….………Appellant 1, Prabhat Building, 28, ‘B’ Road Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 [PAN: AAXPT 4838 Q] Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by Ved Jain and Mukesh Advani for the appellant Avaneesh Tiwari for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : January 28,2020 Date of pronouncement : July 16 ,202…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Hon'ble Supreme [1999] 236 ITR 34(SC) Ors. Court Dated 17/12/1997 7. Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Hon'ble Bombay High [2013] 356 ITR 200 Court Dated 03/05/2013 8. Multiscreen Media Private Limited vs. Hon'ble Bombay High [2010]324 ITR 54 Union of India and Anr. Court Dated 17/02/2010 A.Y.2004-05 On the strength of above judicial pronouncements, it has been submitted that at the time of reopening. Ld. AO should only have prima-facie reasons to believe that certain income has escaped assessment and at this stage, he is not required to conclusively establish concealment. Further, si…

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Hindaun City vs. ITO, Dausa

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

ITA 111/JPR/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: The Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.C.JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

…s no such issue of sufficiency of reason either raised or considered by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2003-04. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Multiscreen Media P. Ltd. vs. Union of India 324TTJ 48 as well as 6 ITA 111/JP/14_ Ashok Kumar Agrawal vs. ITO 324 ITR 54 has considered this issue of validity of reopening separately based on the reopening assessments within and beyond 4 years. The Hon’ble High Court has held the reopening for the assessment years which was beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid whereas the reopening in case of assessment year where it was within th…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…not be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woolen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the jurisdictional high court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under : "Where the AO purports to exercise power under s.147 within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power is the…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 920/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147Section 194HSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9

…spute. This in our opinion would constitute to a material relevant for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147. Support in this regard can safely be drawn from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multiscreen Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 324 ITR 54 (Bom) wherein it is held that reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent assessment is valid. It was also submitted before us that there is no failure or omission on part of the appellant to disclose material relevant during the course of original assessment proceedings. We find that this is totally irrelevant. Proviso to section 147 is n…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed and Appeal for the A

ITA 1017/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ssment after four years as well as within four years based on the assessment of the subsequent assessment year has been considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 324 ITR 48 as well as 324 ITR 54 for different assessment years. The reopening for the assessment year which was beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was found to be invalid whereas the reopening in the case of the assessment year whether it was within the period of four years from the end of the assessment year was held to be valid. The Hon'ble High Cou…

Smt. P.Hamsaveni, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1801/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Dass, JCIT (D.R)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 54F

…fore the Hon'ble High Court after considering the various judgments and settled principle on the issue passed two separate judgments one for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 reported in 324 ITR 48 and another for Assessment Year 2004-05 reported in 324 ITR 54. The reopening for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 was held as invalid by the Hon'ble High Court as it was after not satisfied in that case. The Hon'ble High Court has held in paras 12 & 13 as under : “ 12. The notice issued by the AO under s. 148 does not state that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly di…

Abb India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 1124/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Abb India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Abb Ltd.) 21 Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway,No.26/01, Dr.Rajkumar Road Malleswaram West, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaaca 3834 B Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o the knowledge of AO that the provisions of section 10(23G) were omitted w.e.f. 1/4/2007 during the course of subsequent assessment proceedings. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multiscreeen Media (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & another (324 ITR 54). Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ess Kay Engineering P.Ltd. vs. CIT (247 ITR 818) Phool Chand Bajrang Law & another vs. CIT(203 ITR 456) held that information obtained in subsequent assessment proceedings could lead to a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment even though the transaction in question had been exam…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 79

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The ACIT, circle-(OSD)-2(1) 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma C…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant PAN: AAACF 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10/12/2015 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company, directed against…