Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

382 ITR 93High Court2016#4763 most cited

What is Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the assessment year are invalid if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nirmal Bang Securities · reassessment · section 147 · four years · full and true disclosure · material facts · assessment procedure · section 143(3) · section 149

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 10AASection 115JBSection 149Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosurebeyond four yearsinitial assessment yearfresh tangible materialsection 151(2)material facts necessary for assessmentsection 10aamere change of opinionaccumulated profitssection 10acomputer softwaresection 144c(1)

Judgments citing Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

ITA 86/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…e appellant company. a. German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bombay) (IIC). b. CIT v Former France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). c. Tata Business Support Services Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2015) (Bombay) (HC). d. Nirmal Band Securities (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bombay) (HC). e. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Тахтап 367 (Gujarat) (HC) (SLP of revenue is dismissed, Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Тахтап 366 (SC) B) FOR THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL: All the evidences in support of subscription of Share Capital of Rs.50 lacs by Sharma Hire Purchase Ltd. were filed, which h…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, failing which the reopening of the assessment cannot be triggered." Similarly Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT 382 ITR 93 (Bom) has held as under: "21. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment had been made under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year Page 40 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 2000-01. It is also admitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2000-01 was after the expir…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, failing which the reopening of the assessment cannot be triggered." Similarly Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT 382 ITR 93 (Bom) has held as under: "21. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment had been made under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year Page 40 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 2000-01. It is also admitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2000-01 was after the expir…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nsidered opinion, the re- assessment proceedings initiated are bad in law as it lacks jurisdiction as held the series of judgements of various High Courts ie., judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Ltd vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.); Sabharwal Properties Industries P. Ltd vs. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi.) and Kerala High Court judgment in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Digital Mesh Softech India (P) in WAs No. 286 & 252 of 2024, dated 13/03/2024. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court (supra) is…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nsidered opinion, the re- assessment proceedings initiated are bad in law as it lacks jurisdiction as held the series of judgements of various High Courts ie., judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Ltd vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.); Sabharwal Properties Industries P. Ltd vs. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi.) and Kerala High Court judgment in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Digital Mesh Softech India (P) in WAs No. 286 & 252 of 2024, dated 13/03/2024. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court (supra) is…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nsidered opinion, the re- assessment proceedings initiated are bad in law as it lacks jurisdiction as held the series of judgements of various High Courts ie., judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Ltd vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.); Sabharwal Properties Industries P. Ltd vs. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi.) and Kerala High Court judgment in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Digital Mesh Softech India (P) in WAs No. 286 & 252 of 2024, dated 13/03/2024. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court (supra) is…

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…)  Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC)  Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ary, the Ld. Departm…

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…)  Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC)  Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ary, the Ld. Departm…

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…)  Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC)  Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ary, the Ld. Departm…

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

…m) • Citius Tech Healthcare Tech. P Ltd. Vs DCIT (155 Taxmann.com 334) (Bom) • Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.) (HC) • Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC) • Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxmann 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) referred to the survey proceedings and the information obtained therein and submitted that the basis of the reasons recorded is the fresh information obtained during the course of the survey which constitu…

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…)  Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC)  Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ary, the Ld. Departm…

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…)  Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v.ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.) (HC)  Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 (Bom.) Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC) 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ary, the Ld. Departm…

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

ITA 573/IND/2019[2011`-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…eIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Born) b. Asian Paints Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Born) (198) c. ICICI Life Insurance Co Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 471 [Born] d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom)(577) e. Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93(Bom)(HC) f. Aryan Arcade Ltd vs Den (2017) 4.14 During the assessment proceedings, if new facts, material or information comes to the knowledge of the AO, which was not on record and available at the time of the assessment order, the principle of- change of opinion will not apply. The reason is that- opinion is formed on fats. Opinion formed or ba…

DR. SHAILENDRA SINGH (ALIAS SHAILENDRA SINGH),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7520/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Rajan Samal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7520/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2007-08) Dr. Shailendra I. Singh v. DCIT– Central Circle – 2(3) (Alias Shailendra Singh) Room No. 803, 8th Floor 402A, Lotus, Hiranandani Gardens Old. C.G.O. Building (Annexe) Powai, Mumbai - 400076 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ANQPS1896K (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 7519/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2007-08) Dr. Pushpa Singh v. DCIT– Central Circle – 2(3) (Alias Pushpa Singh) Room No. 803 402A, Lotus, Hiranandani Gardens Old. C.G.O.…

DR PUSHPA SINGH (ALIAS PUSHPA SINGH),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7519/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Rajan Samal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7520/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2007-08) Dr. Shailendra I. Singh v. DCIT– Central Circle – 2(3) (Alias Shailendra Singh) Room No. 803, 8th Floor 402A, Lotus, Hiranandani Gardens Old. C.G.O. Building (Annexe) Powai, Mumbai - 400076 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ANQPS1896K (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 7519/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2007-08) Dr. Pushpa Singh v. DCIT– Central Circle – 2(3) (Alias Pushpa Singh) Room No. 803 402A, Lotus, Hiranandani Gardens Old. C.G.O.…

RASI SEEDS (P) LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2134/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. A.S. Bindu, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2134/Chny/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/s. Rasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of 174, Sathyamurthy Road, Income Tax, Ramnagar, Central Circle-II Coimbatore-641 009. Coimbatore. PAN: AABCR 2871C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, FCA अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. A.S. Bindu, CIT ""यथ"क"ओ…

DCIT 1 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 14/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 194J(1)Section 40

…ed and no addition could be made to those reasons and no inference could be drawn based on reasons not recorded. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: 22. It is now well settled that the reasons which are recorded by the Assessing Officer for re-opening an assessment are the only reasons which could be considered. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons and no inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons no…

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…en the material coming to the notice of the income tax offices and the formation of his belief that there has been an escapement of income of the assessee from assessment.” 20. The Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., reported in 382 ITR 93 after noticing the reasons recorded and the legal position as well as the statutory provisions of the Act in para [24] of the judgment, held as under: - "In view of the aforesaid well-settled legal position and there admittedly being not even an allegation in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the port of the petitioner to disclos…

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

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

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…he reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., reported in 382 ITR 93 wherein after noticing the reasons recorded and the legal position as well as the statutory provisions of the Act in para [24] of the judgment, it was held as under: - “In view of the aforesaid well-settled legal position and there adm it tedly being not even an allegation in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the port of the petit…

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

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

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…he reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., reported in 382 ITR 93 wherein after noticing the reasons recorded and the legal position as well as the statutory provisions of the Act in para [24] of the judgment, it was held as under: - “In view of the aforesaid well-settled legal position and there adm it tedly being not even an allegation in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the port of the petit…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2