Press Private Limited & Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (W.P.(C) 7452/

363 ITR 603High Court2014#11578 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing Press Private Limited & Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (W.P.(C) 7452/

Commr of Income Tax [TDS], Hyderabad vs. M/S Jayadarshini Housing Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad

ITTA/65/2014HC Telangana26 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Charan Das, Sr

Section 147Section 148

…. ITO v Lakshmani 103 ITR 437 (SC). Information to form Reason to believe available at the time of reopening not subsequent to it. CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur 311 ITR 38 (P&H) No New Tangible Material even within 4 years, reopening not valid. NDT systems v. ITO 363 ITR 603 Explanation 3 to s. 147 was inserted to supersede the judgements in Vipin Khanna 255 ITR 220 (P&H) & Travancore Cements 305 ITR 170 (Ker) where it was held that the AO could not assess income in respect of issues unconnected with the issue for which the notice was issued. However, Explanation 3 does not affect the judgements in Ram Singh 306 ITR…

DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Suraksha Realty Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6258/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6258//Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Suraksha Realty Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 11(2)(2) 3, Narayan Building, 23 L.N. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Road Dadar (E), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 014 Mumbai-20 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aalcs7864A प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 28/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 6258/Mum/2017 For Ay 2011-12) M/S Suraksha Realty Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 3, Narayan Building, 23 L.N. Income Tax, Circle 11(2)(2) Road Dadar (E), Mumbai-400 Vs. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 014 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-04-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2019

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…change in opinion and for change of opinion no reopening is permissible. The learned Counsel for the assessee for this proposition relied on the 16 CO No. 28/Mum/2019 decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of NDT Systems and Another vs. ITO (2014) 363 ITR 603 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue as under: - “…… We have considered the submissions. We find that the notice dated March 20, 2012, under section 148 of the Act has been issued within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., 2007-08. In such circumstances, the proviso to section 1…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s placed upon the decision in CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 482(Bom.) NYK Line (India) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 361(Bom) and NDT Systems and Another vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. [2014] 363 ITR 603(Bom.). 2.1. On the other hand, Shri Nitin Waghmode, ld. DR, defended the reopening of assessment by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income- tax (No. 1) (2001) 252 ITR 673(BOM). It was argued that the issue before the Ld. Assessing Officer was whether the exemption u…

Vista Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5768/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561; ii) Hindustan Liver Ltd v/s R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332; iii) Sabh Infrastructures Ltd. v/s ACIT, 398 ITR 198; iv) Indulata Rangwala v/s DCIT, 384 ITR 337; and v) NDT Systems v/s ITO, 363 ITR 603. 7 M/s. Vista Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [Now M/s. PVR Ltd.] 8. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, even otherwise also the issue on which the assessment was re–opened under section 147 of the Act having already been decided in favour of the assessee the re–opening under section 147 of the Act becomes a futile exercise. He submitted, so fa…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :007-08 ACIT, Circle-40, V/s. Sundarlal Mohanlal 18, Rabindra Sarani, Sarda & Others (AOP), Podder Court, 4th Floor, H.O Suit No.64, 6th Kolkata-001 Floor, 8, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-11 [PAN No.AABAS 7905G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.12/Kol/2014 (a/o ITANo.116/Kol/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sundarlal Mohanlal V/s. ACIT, Circle-40, Sarda & Others (AOP), 18, Rabindra Sarani, H.O Suit…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…dmutha Industries Ltd v DCIT [2013] 87 DTR 305 (Bom) 12. Titanor Components Ltd v ACIT [2012] 342 ITR 183 (Bom) 13. Asian Paints Ltd v DCIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 14. Hindustan Lever Ltd v R B Wadkar, ITO [2004] 268 ITR 332(Bom) 15. NDT Systems v ITO [2014] 363 ITR 603 (Bom) 16. Johri Lal (HUF) v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439 (SC) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 17. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 18. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd v ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 (Del) 19. United Electrical Co (P) Ltd v CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Del) 20. German Remedies Ltd v DCIT [2006] 287 ITR 494 (Bom) The Ld. AR of the a…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1991/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Yes Bank Limited DCIT, -8(3)(2) 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, discovery Room No.615, 6th Floor, A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt Ltd

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

ITA/65/2014HC Karnataka14 Aug 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 260

…axman 274 (Kar) Commissioner of Income – Tax vs. Hardware Trading Co. (iii) Replika Press Private Limited & Another vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (W.P.(C) 7452/2010 dated 5th August, 2013) 11 (iv) (2014) 363 ITR 603 (Bom) NDT Systems and another vs. Income-Tax Officer and others (v) (2014) 366 ITR 134 (Guj) Deepakbhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. Income- Tax Officer 8. Assessee is in the business of software development. For the assessment year 2003-04 return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 declaring income of ` 15,00,92,060/- after claiming ded…