NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (No.2)

346 ITR 361High Court2012#1599 most cited

What is NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (No.2) authority for?

If the Assessing Officer raises a query during the original assessment and the assessee provides an adequate response, the AO is deemed to have formed an opinion on that issue, even if not explicitly discussed in the assessment order. This principle is crucial for determining the validity of reassessment proceedings, especially to prevent reassessment based on a mere change of opinion under the first proviso to Section 147.

71

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

NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT · 346 ITR 361 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(3) · deemed opinion of AO · mere change of opinion · full and true disclosure · first proviso to Section 147 · reassessment proceedings · original assessment · Section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115JBSection 143(2)Section 10(38)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 102section 2(9)material facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147section 114fresh tangible materialwithin four yearsfull and true disclosurekelvinatormere change of opinionsection 195(2)

Judgments citing NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (No.2)

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.748/NAG/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-4, C/o Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra PAN: ACYPM9289M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mahavir Atal (through Virtual) Respondent by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha (through virtual) Date of hearing : 10.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pe…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…hna Hiralal wani v. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 High Court of Bombay (iv) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 275 High Court Bombay (v) Praveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 High Court of Bombay (vi) Purity Teachtextile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 High Court of Bombay (vii) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. V.ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 High Court of Delhi (viii) CIT v. Keane India Ltd. ITA 230/2012 dated 20-04-2012 High Court Of Delhi (ix) 12. The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case the case was selected for scr…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2845/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…this regard was placed on the\njudicial precedents including:\n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No.\n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman\n479 (Bom)\n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom).\n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and\nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was no…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

ITA 2841/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…regard was placed on the\njudicial precedents including:\n\n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No.\n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman\n479 (Bom)\n\n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom).\n\n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and\nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2836/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…this regard was placed on the\njudicial precedents including:\n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No.\n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman\n479 (Bom)\n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom).\n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and\nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was no…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not appl…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egard was placed on the \njudicial precedents including: \n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. \n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman \n479 (Bom) \n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income \nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). \n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed \nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and \nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings \nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the \nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section \n147 of the Act…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not appl…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

ITA 2623/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…regard was placed on the\njudicial precedents including:\n\n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No.\n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman\n479 (Bom)\n\n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom).\n\n29.\nPer contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and\nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not appl…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2621/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egard was placed on the \njudicial precedents including: \n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. \n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman \n479 (Bom) \n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income \nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). \n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed \nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and \nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings \nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the \nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section \n147 of the Act…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not app…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…liance in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not appl…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2617/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…regard was placed on the\njudicial precedents including:\n\n- Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No.\n1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman\n479 (Bom)\n\n- NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom).\n\n29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and\nsubmitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e in this regard was placed on the judicial precedents including: - Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003, dated 25/02/2004) [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom) - NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (No.2):[2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 29. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that in the present case the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not appl…

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…d to the formation of belief on his part that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of NYK Lime (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (No.2) [2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom) and Purity Tech Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr. [2010] 325 ITR 459 (Bom). 19. Alternatively, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee company is also hit by the “1st proviso” to Section 147 of the Act. Admittedly, the original assessment was framed in the case of the assessee…

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

…al). (ii) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai R. Prajapati, 398 ITR 170 (Guj). (iii) PCIT vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd., 175 DTR 433 (Bom). (iv) PCIT vs. Sun Corporation, 419 ITR 414 (Guj). (v) Dempo Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 403 ITR 196 (Bom). (vi) Purity Tech Textile vs. ACIT, 325 ITR 459 (Bom). (vii) Royal Infrastructure vs. DCIT, 425 ITR 491 (Guj). (viii) BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT, 421 ITR 59 (Delhi). 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record incl…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. MACMILLAN EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147

…ifferent :-13-: ITA. No:2036/Chny/2024 & CO No: 66/Chny/2024 view was taken in subsequent AY and the same cannot tantamount to tangible material. The Respondent Assessee relies on the Bombay High Court decision in the NYK Line (India) Ltd Vs DCIT reported in 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 12.4 In light of the above arguments, the ld.ARsubmitted that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the Assessee by the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA.No.2784/Chny/2019 dated 19.09.2022 and prayed for dismissing the department appeal. 13. We have heard the rival contentions, gone throug…

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2838/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Industrial Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Development Corporation, (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, 400 093 Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaacm3560C Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

…an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the AO would make the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10 MIDC 7. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in NYK Line (India) Ltd v. DCIT [2012] 346 ITR 361 (Bom) and Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT[2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has held that when a question is raised by AO during the course of original assessment and adequately responded to by the assessee, even when the aspect is not dealt with in the assessment order, it would be deemed that the AO has expressed an opinion on the issue raised. Therefore, ju…

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (No.2) (346 ITR 361) — Cited in 71 Judgments | BharatTax