Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (340 ITR 53) 2. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (348 ITR 439) 3. ACIT v. Manubhai Sons & Co.

18 SOT 297Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#17108 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (340 ITR 53) 2. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (348 ITR 439) 3. ACIT v. Manubhai Sons & Co.

MAXTECH REALTY PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS NANDIVARDHAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-2, THANE

ITA 690/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250

…/2022) (b) (2022) 140 taxmann.com 336(Chattisgarh) Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Jugalkishore Paliwal vs JCIT (1/4/2022) (c) (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 404 (Allahabad) Allahabad High Court in the case of Ambuj Foods (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (11/4/2022) (d) (2007) 18 SOT 297 (Mumbai) ACIT Central Circle 25 Mumbai vs Manubhai & Sons and Co. (11/4/2022) 10.1 At last, the Ld. DR claimed that in view of the above, it is clear that non mentioning of the fact, regarding non disclosure of fully and truly material facts in the reasons /reopening, can not vitiate the reassessment proceedings and issue of the subsequent to rec…

MRF LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU 2(I/C), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1175/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1175/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Mrf Limited, The Acit, New No.114, Greams Road, V. Large Tax Payer Unit-2(I/C), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aaacm4154G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy,JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80JSection 8O

…idence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the assessing officer does not necessarily amount to a disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to section 147. The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Manubhai Sons & Co., 18 SOT 297 also held that even if it is assumed that, from the documents produced, the assessing Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, he is not on that account precluded from exercising the power to assess income, which has escaped assessment. Therefore, mere disclosure in books of account or in other evidence does not necessa…

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

…ity might not. In respect of the failure to disclose, the omission to 7 ITA-2202/Del/2010 disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent but that is immaterial. 2.8 The reliance is placed on the order of ITAT Mumbai in case of ACIT Vs. Manubhai Sons & Co. [2007] 18 SOT 297 (MUM.) which in turn rely upon the above stated ratios of judgments of Hon’ble SC in cases of Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO, Rajahmundry(supra) and Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(supra). The relevant portion is reproduced as under: “6. “6. It may not be out of place to mention here a decision of “6. “6. the Ho…

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD (FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…t to reopen such assessment under section 147. In support of such contention the Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions: 1. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (340 ITR 53) 2. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (348 ITR 439) 3. ACIT vs. Manubhai Sons & Co. (18 SOT 297) 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (350 ITR 651) 12. The Ld. D.R. submitted, the assessee having not objected to the reopening of assessment before the AO and having participated in the reassessment proceeding he cannot challenge the reopening of assessment at the subsequent stage. For such proposition he relied u…

ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FOPRMERLY KKNOWN AS VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM, LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3326/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250