Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

323 ITR 60High Court2010#4191 most cited

What is Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reopening of assessment is justified when the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars. This means the Assessing Officer has valid grounds to initiate reassessment proceedings.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT · 323 ITR 60 · incorrect particulars · reopening of assessment · reassessment justified · section 147 · section 148

Judgments citing Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of p…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have 27 Shri Mithalal D Mut…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 3.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 4.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction o…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

…) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished 25 Disha N. Lalwani incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.24. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system 21 M/s M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. of accounting s…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…(2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the Shri Prakash Fatandas Jassuja. computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.30. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of…