(P.) Ltd. v. ITO

221 ITR 538Supreme Court of India1996#829 most cited

What is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO · Section 148 notice · Section 151 sanction · specified authority approval · mechanical reopening of assessment · harassment of assessee · income escaping assessment · procedural check · old regime Section 151 · within four years

Also reported as

87 Taxmann 3159 SCC 534

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 147Section 148ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 149Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 151(i)section 148a(a)within four yearssection 151(ii)section 148 noticesection 3(1)section 151(2)section 151(1)sanctioning authorityorder under section 148a(d)specified authorityincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani ACIT-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6th floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. PAN No. AADPB1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR Date of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 03/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is d…

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi ACIT Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3rdKumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 PAN No. AACPM0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru…

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi ACIT Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3rdKumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 PAN No. AACPM0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act, the following conditions are required to be s…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act, the following conditions are required to be s…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3441/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinsdia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 147oSection 263Section 43Section 43BSection 44A

…ol Chand BajrangLal and Anr. V. Income Tax Officer and An., (1993) 203 ITR 456 (Supreme Court) iii. ITO, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 (103) ITR 437 (Supreme Court) iv. Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Etc. v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 534 v. CIT vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 2CC 723 /320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court) vi. CIT vs. Orient Craft, (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) The final conclusion of the Learned CIT (Appeals) for quashing the reassessment order reads as under:- “In this case, the original assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2006. The details o…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. DCIT, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6th floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAACS6994C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Chetan Karia Mrs. Vidi…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…formation of belief is not for the court to judge. Reassessment notices are valid. [Applied/followed in- 208 ITR 196 (RAJ) : 208 ITR 266 (DEL): 209 ITR 01 (BOM) :209 ITR 135(BOM): Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 211 ITR 447 (SC): 214 ITR 669 (RAJ) : 221 ITR 538 (SC) :226 ITR 352 (GUH): 237 1TR 549 (BOM):248 ITR 493 (P&H) :ITO VS Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. 217 ITR 597 (SC) :253 ITR 83 (DEL) 257 ITR 481 (Guj)] It has been held in a number of judicial pronouncements that what is necessary to re-open an assessment is not final verdict but a prima facie reason. Once such a reason is recorded by as…

Goldtex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BENCH ‘ : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No 2202/Del/201…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…on 143(1) had been issued. 2.4.10 Further, It is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true disclosure of all materia…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…on 143(1) had been issued. 2.4.10 Further, It is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true disclosure of all materia…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ra 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened und…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…2016 New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened und…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Aska Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2682/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…one. It is hedged with several safe guards conceived ITA No. 2682/Kol/13 M/s. Aska Investments Pvt.Ltd 3 in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed to the decision in Sri Krishna (P) Ltd -vs- CIT,221 ITR 538 (SC). (2) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment though wide are not plenary. The words of the statute are 'reason to believe' and not 'reason to suspect '. The belief entertained by Assessing Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. (3) The expression 'reason to b…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…cumstances is a condition precedent and a necessary safeguard for the statutory right of the assessee and this has to be performed not in a mechanical manner. This is what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Krishna Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO" , 221 ITR 538 (SC) and by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of "German Remedies", 287 ITR 494 (Born.). 41. In "CIT vs. Amedius", 351 ITR 82 (Del.), it has been held that it is primarily the duty of the AO to compute the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction in accordance with the most appropriate method specifie…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…. If he had not done so, the proposed reopening cannot be assailed on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion." That the disclosure should be both 'true' and 'full' has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO 221 ITR 538, Indian Oil Corporation ltd. V. ITO 1061TR 1. In this case, assessee though had disclosed some facts related to claim of deduction. However, it had failed to disclose truly and correctly the effect of the same on the income of the assessee. In view of the above and the fact that Assessing Officer had recorded the reasons to believe u/s 148 of th…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 22 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 2.14. For reopening an assessment made undersection 143(3) of the Act, the following co…

Sujata R. Mital, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the Asst

ITA 589/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ve considered the submission of the Ld. DR and gone through the material placed before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the first grounds of appeal of the assessee relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Krisha P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538 (SC) in which it was held that merely because claim is reflected in the accounts does no ipso facto constitute a full and true disclosure of facts, and Shushil Kumar Jalan vs. ITA 34/Gau/2011 dated. 03/02/2011 in which it is held that when assessee participates in assessment proceedings after rejection of objections to reopening, it is not open f…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ng Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) 9 Mr. R.P. Suvarna Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened unde…

M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…TR 439 (SC) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) " CIT Vs T S PLP Chidambaram Chattier (1971) 80 ITR 467 (SC) " H A Hanji & CO. Vs ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal) " Sheo Nath Sing Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Shri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) " Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " S. Narayanppa Vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 at page 222 (SC) " Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 at 477 (SC) 7 Veena Enterprises Ltd. 6. The AO did not find merit in the objections of the assessee and observed t…