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 366,421 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

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…) 58. Lokendra Singh Rathore, 155 ITR 629 (MP) 59. United Electrical Co. (P) Limited, 258 ITR 317 (Del) 60. Foramer France 364 ITR 566 (SC) 61. Purolator India Ltd. 343 ITR 155 (Del) 62. Motor & General Fiance, 184 Taxman 465 (Del) 63. Titanor Components Ltd. 343 ITR 183 (Bom) 64. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd, 3\232 CTR 260 (Del) 65. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, 308 ITR 38 (Del) 66. German Remedies Ltd. 287 ITR 494 (Bom) 67. Grindwell Norton , 267 ITR 673 (Bom) 68. Pe/co Lectronics & Electricals Ltd, 210 ITR 991 (Cal) 69. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 216 ITR 317 (Guj) 70. Garden Silk Mills…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 710/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas. CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…an under assessment on all these four heads at the time of passing of the original assessment order. Thus, the A.O. wanted to correct the error in the original assessment passed by the A.O. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd., 343 ITR 183 held that “re- assessment to correct an error in assessment, re-assessment is not valid.” The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vardhaman Industries 363 ITR 625 held that “reasons must be based on new and tangible material. Notice based on documents already on record to re-assessment not valid.” The Ld. CIT(A) has given specific finding…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…at assessee had claimed the above deduction on account of loss on sale of fixed assets which have been wrongly allowed by the A.O, in the original assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Limited vs., ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) held that “re-assessment to correct error in assessment is not valid.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swamy [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) held that “note already filed with return declaring nature of capital receipt, no other factual material found, 11 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurg…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7377/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Hindustand Liver Ltd. Vs. Wadkar (R.B), ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and also Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) and held as under: “13. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 has not been issued after the expiry of four years, but within four years. Therefore, the assessee must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and which alone will enable him to assess or reassess such income and also any other i…

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

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

ITA 7325/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Hindustand Liver Ltd. Vs. Wadkar (R.B), ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and also Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) and held as under: “13. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 has not been issued after the expiry of four years, but within four years. Therefore, the assessee must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and which alone will enable him to assess or reassess such income and also any other i…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: (i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT (268 ITR 332) (Bombay High Court), (ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (346 ITR 361) (Bombay High Court), (iii) Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (343 ITR 183(Bombay High Court),Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT (301 ITR 407 (Bombay High Court) (iv) Mumbai Tribunal in Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV vs. ADIT in ITA No. 495 & 496/Mum/2016 dated 28.02.2018. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the decision relied by ld. DR are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld AR…

Vivek Vijay Nair, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the ground number one and two of the appeals are

ITA 4278/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Vivek Vijay Nair Acit-2(2), C/O Pangea Shipping Agencies It Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan: Adfpn8491C Appellant Respondent Smt. Sindhu Vijay Nair Acit-2(2), C/O Pangea Shipping Agencies It Office, Aayakar Bhavan, P. Ltd. 309, Skylark Building, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan: Aabpn7907N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Respondent By : Shri V. Justin (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 69A

…l contentions raised by assessee in his final assessment order, it could not be said that he had not applied his mind; and in such a case reopening of assessment after four years could not be said to be justified. 9. In Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 183(Bom) it was held that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment year 1997-98. What was recorded was that the assessee had wrongly claimed certain deductions which he was not entitled to. There is a well known difference between a wron…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…ported in 57 DTR 0179. 11. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 338 ITR 51; 12. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 343 ITR 183. 13. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646 (Del.) 14. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 359 ITR 106. 15. Copy of order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NC Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015. 16. Copy of judgment of…

Ashok Baldevbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 of the

ITA 787/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 68

…ttress his submissions the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Bombay High Court in case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT & Ors [346 ITR 443], Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [382 ITR 93], Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT & Ors [343 ITR 183],Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [268 ITR 332] and Morarjee Goculdas Spinning And Weaving Co Ltd Vs P.N. Bansal & Another [208 ITR 471], Mumbai Tribunal in Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [ITA No. 1040 & 1041/Mum/2017] dated 27.09.2017, Rajasthan High Court in case of Dhadda Exports Vs ITO [377 ITR 347], Allahabad High Court in case…

M/S. Fashionage Corporation (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3542/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ce, recorded the present reasons for reopening of the assessment to make correction in his earlier re- assessment order, which is not permissible under the Law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd., vs. ACIT and others (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) held as under : “Where a reassessment is sought to be made after four years the power conferred by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not provide afresh opportunity to the Assessing Officer to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Chemito Tehcnologies P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4644/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-7(3) M/S Chemito Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Road, 8, Mohatta Bhavan, Off Mumbai-400020. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aaact1930B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

…n the original assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2005. He relies inter alia on the decision in Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom), Sound Casting (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom), Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom), Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of reassessment. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. Addition of Rs.14,59,00,000/- Th…

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

…he reassessment was made beyond four years as the notice was issued on 25/03/2011 by contending that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Titano Components ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.). On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Suman Kumar, defended the reopening by contending that the material facts were not disclosed by the assessee for which our attention was invited to the factual finding recorded in the impugned order and the admission of the assessee that there was error on the part of the assessee to disclose the materi…

Ajay Multi Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…88/Mum./2012, dated 2.7.2015; ii) M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. v/s JCIT, ITA no.5858 & 5859/Mum./ 2012 dated 28.10.2015; iii) Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.1819/Mum./2012, order dated 17.4.2013; and iv) Titanor Components Ltd. v/s ACIT & Ors., [2012] 343 ITR 183 (Bom.). 5. Learned Departmental Representative raising a preliminary objection submitted, the assessee has not raised the validity of re– opening before the first appellate authority. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot raise such issue. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, learned Departmental Representative submitted that on the basis…

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3369/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos./420/Mum/2014 & 3369/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.2005-06 वष" Acit-6(3), 522, 5Th Floor Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Worli,Mumbai--400 030. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacg 4414 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Amrita Misra (Dr) Assessee By: S/Shri Niraj Sheth & Vallabh Gokhale(Ar) सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt.18.3.2015 & 11.11.13 Of Cit(A)-13 & Cit(A)-12 Respectively, Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Raising Various Grounds.As Both The Appeals Are For The Same Ay.S,So We Are Adjudicating Them By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Niraj Sheth & Vallabh Gokhale(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Misra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,"जी अिधकरण जी जी” खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“G”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos./420/Mum/2014 & 3369/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.2005-06 वष" ACIT-6(3), 522, 5th Floor Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited GSK House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Vs. Worli,Mumbai--400 030. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACG 4414 B (अपीलाथ…

Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT -6(3), Mumbai

ITA 420/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos./420/Mum/2014 & 3369/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.2005-06 वष" Acit-6(3), 522, 5Th Floor Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Worli,Mumbai--400 030. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacg 4414 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Amrita Misra (Dr) Assessee By: S/Shri Niraj Sheth & Vallabh Gokhale(Ar) सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt.18.3.2015 & 11.11.13 Of Cit(A)-13 & Cit(A)-12 Respectively, Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Raising Various Grounds.As Both The Appeals Are For The Same Ay.S,So We Are Adjudicating Them By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Niraj Sheth & Vallabh Gokhale(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Misra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,"जी अिधकरण जी जी” खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“G”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos./420/Mum/2014 & 3369/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.2005-06 वष" ACIT-6(3), 522, 5th Floor Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited GSK House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Vs. Worli,Mumbai--400 030. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACG 4414 B (अपीलाथ…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…m. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is provided in first proviso to section 147 which states that…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporationlimited, Neyveli vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…m. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is provided in first proviso to section 147 which states that…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…m. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is provided in first proviso to section 147 which states that…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli vs. ITO, Cuddalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…m. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is provided in first proviso to section 147 which states that…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…m. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, reopening is valid in law. The most material part which was argued by the ld.AR is regarding the time lag which is provided in first proviso to section 147 which states that…