R 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd. v. DCIT

343 ITR 183High Court2012#2940 most cited

What is R 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reopening assessment beyond four years under Section 147 is permissible only if the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. Mere change of opinion is not a valid ground for reopening.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Titanor Components Ltd vs ACIT · 343 ITR 183 · Section 147 · Section 143(3) · first proviso to section 147 · reopening of assessment · material facts necessary for assessment · beyond four years · change of opinion · fresh tangible material

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 250Section 68Section 112(1)Section 115JAA

Issues it is cited on

first proviso to section 147fresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentbeyond four yearschange of opinionkelvinatormere change of opiniontangible materialreason to believereopening of assessmentescapement of incomenotice under section 148

Judgments citing R 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd. v. DCIT

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del.) P a g e | 7 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del.) - CIT v. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del.) - Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT: [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) - Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v. ITO: [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bom.) - Kalpataru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd v. ITO: [2013] 215 Taxman 479 ( Guj.) - Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: [1995] 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) 11. Without prejudice, it is most respectfully submitted that there was, even otherwise, on the facts of the case and in…

C.G. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

ITA 300/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

For Appellant: Shri S.N Agrawal, CA (Joined virtually)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 801Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.300/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 PAN: AACCC5355P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N Agrawal, CA (Joined virtually) Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Pat…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…y disclosing material facts in relation to such claim, as has been held in the following decisions: Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del) CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACTT: [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd vs. ITO: [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bom) Kalpataru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd vs. ITO: [2013] 215 Taxman 479 (Guj) Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. ACIT: [1995] 216 ITR 371 (Guj) 32. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, it is respectfully submitted that on perusal o…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…y disclosing material facts in relation to such claim, as has been held in the following decisions: Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del) CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd.: [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACTT: [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd vs. ITO: [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bom) Kalpataru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd vs. ITO: [2013] 215 Taxman 479 (Guj) Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. ACIT: [1995] 216 ITR 371 (Guj) 32. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, it is respectfully submitted that on perusal o…

M/S. Coolhut Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 1450/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: the time of hearing.”

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…the part of the assessee fully and truly disclose all material facts. Even further the failure if any should be reflected in the reasons. In the case of the assessee, there is nothing mention in the reasons. Further, in the case of Titanor Components Vs. ACIT-343 ITR 183 (Bom), First Source Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT 438 ITR 139 (Bom), Asia Net Star Communications Vs. ACIT 422 ITR 47 (Mad) and Hindustan Lever Vs. DCIT 439 ITR 333 (Bom),all these cases have held that the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts should be reflected in the reasons. 7. On the other hand, the…

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…n this regard can be placed on following judgments, as cited by Ld. Sr. Counsel. 1. CIT v. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) 2. Purolator India Ltd: 343 ITR 155 (Del.) 3. CIT v. Motor & General Finance: 184 Taxman 465 (Del.) 4. Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT: 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) 5. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: 232 CTR 260 (Del.) 6. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company: 308 ITR 38 (Del.) 7. German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT: 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) 8. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT: 268 ITR 339 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO: 208 ITR 509 (Cal.) 11. Peico Electronics & El…

Krishna Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4292/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. 508, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Pan: Aabck-5678-G ---- Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 10(1)(2), Mumbai Room No.651, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/s. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. 508, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. PAN: AABCK-5678-G ---- Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 10(1)(2), Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Respondent by : Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024 O R D E R…

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

…Counsel placed reliance on certain judicial precedents including decisions by Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court of Bombay. The same are listed as under: (1) Hindustan Lever Ltd. -vs- R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom) [2004] (ii) Titanor Components Ltd. -vs- ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom) [2012] (iii) Milton Plastics Ltd. -vs- Mudit Nagpal, 151 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2023] (iv) Vibrant Securities (P.) Ltd. -vs- ITO, 455 ITR 58 (Bombay) [2023] 5. Legal issue raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been dismissed without any deliberation and explanation. Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.1 has summarily dismissed the legal issue by…

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

…Counsel placed reliance on certain judicial precedents including decisions by Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court of Bombay. The same are listed as under: (1) Hindustan Lever Ltd. -vs- R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom) [2004] (ii) Titanor Components Ltd. -vs- ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom) [2012] (iii) Milton Plastics Ltd. -vs- Mudit Nagpal, 151 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2023] (iv) Vibrant Securities (P.) Ltd. -vs- ITO, 455 ITR 58 (Bombay) [2023] 5. Legal issue raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been dismissed without any deliberation and explanation. Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.1 has summarily dismissed the legal issue by…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxmann.com 104) (Guj.HC) ix. Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT(343 ITR 183) (Bom.) x. Voltas Ltd. v ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 656( Bom.) ITA 183/Hyd/2020. 13. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reopening u/s. 147 of the I.T.Act in absence of fresh tangible material / failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material which are necessary for the assessment is bad in law and void.…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxmann.com 104) (Guj.HC) ix. Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT(343 ITR 183) (Bom.) x. Voltas Ltd. v ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 656( Bom.) ITA 183/Hyd/2020. 13. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reopening u/s. 147 of the I.T.Act in absence of fresh tangible material / failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material which are necessary for the assessment is bad in law and void.…

M/S Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 107/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata 37/2, Chinar Park New Town Hatiara Rajarhat Main Road Kolkata - 7000157 Pan : Aaecs0373H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 26 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Reopening U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Kolkata)  DCIT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. [ITA No. 634/Kol/2013] dt. 07/09/2016 (ITAT Kolkata)  Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [257 ITR 84]  Peerless Hospitex Hospital and Research Centre vs. PCIT [137 Taxmann.com 359]  Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT [343 ITR 183] 6. Om the second plea , the ld. A/R contended that the objections filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order but the same were disposed off in the assessment order itself which is bad in law and against the various judicial precedents by…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Kakkanad vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgements:- a) Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (357 ITR 50) (Delhi HC) b) Titanor Components Vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183) (Bombay HC) c) Principal CIT-II Vs. L&T Ltd. (113 Taxmann.com 48) (SC) ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelv…

Jubilee Mission Hospital., Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgements:- a) Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (357 ITR 50) (Delhi HC) b) Titanor Components Vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183) (Bombay HC) c) Principal CIT-II Vs. L&T Ltd. (113 Taxmann.com 48) (SC) ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelv…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgements:- a) Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (357 ITR 50) (Delhi HC) b) Titanor Components Vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183) (Bombay HC) c) Principal CIT-II Vs. L&T Ltd. (113 Taxmann.com 48) (SC) ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelv…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following judgements:- a) Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (357 ITR 50) (Delhi HC) b) Titanor Components Vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183) (Bombay HC) c) Principal CIT-II Vs. L&T Ltd. (113 Taxmann.com 48) (SC) ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelv…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii. Viren Sureshchandra Shah v. ACIT (63 taxmann.com 104) (Guj.HC) ix. Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT(343 ITR 183) (Bom.) x. Voltas Ltd. v ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 656( Bom.) 9 ITA 183/Hyd/2020 13. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reopening u/s. 147 of the I.T.Act in absence of fresh tangible material / failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material which are necessary for the assessment is bad in law and voi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Alfa Laval India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2173/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 The Dy.Cit, .......अपीलाथ" /Appellant Circle-8, Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S.Alfa Laval India Ltd., S.No.2221 A, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Near Kasarwadi, Pune – 411 012. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan: Aaaca 5899 A Revenue By : Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 01.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Holding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 As Bad In Law? 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating That The Mistake In The Original Assessment Due To Erroneous Construction Or Due To Non-Consideration Of The Conditions Required To Be Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak - ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Walimbe - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण“ए”"यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2173/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 The Dy.CIT, .......अपीलाथ" /Appellant Circle-8, Pune. बनाम / V/s. M/s.Alfa Laval India Ltd., S.No.2221 A, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Near Kasarwadi, Pune – 411 012. ……""यथ" / Respondent PAN: AAACA 5899 A Revenue by : Shri S.P.Walimbe - DR Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak - AR सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022 आदेश…

M/S. Bharti Cellular Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…ate of the concerned assessment year and M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT there was an assessment under Section 143(3) in respect of the assessee." 5.6 Similarly, the Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT, as reported in [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bombay) held as under: "Nowhere has the Assessing Officer stated that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Having regard to the purpose of the section, we are of the view that the power conferred by Section 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the Asses…

Hanish Singla, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment

ITA 1740/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1740/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2008-09 Hanish Singla ITO C/o Adv. Vijay Kr. Gupta, vs. Ward 1(3) Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. PAN No. ALEPS1136N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vijay Gupta, Adv. For Assessee : For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : .01.2021 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-Faridabad dated 28.12.2018 for AY 2008-09. 2. I have heard Ld.…