Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

352 ITR 549High Court2013#3975 most cited

What is Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

If an Assessing Officer fails to dispose of objections filed by an assessee regarding reopening of assessment, the subsequent assessment order is invalid.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rabo India Finance Ltd v DCIT · Vishwanath Engineers v ACIT · reopening of assessment · disposal of objections · assessment bad in law · section 148 · section 147 · final assessment order · void ab initio

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

reopening of assessmentescapement of incomefinal assessment orderspeaking ordersection 131accommodation entryindiasection 250nfac

Judgments citing Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

Smt Janaki Amma, Shivamogga vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Shivamogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2807/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…) was upheld. 6.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that mere rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the fa…

Ge Transportation Parts Llc vs. Commissioner Oflncome Tax (International Taxation), Delhi - I

ITA/686/2017HC Delhi21 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 115Section 115QSection 11ASection 143Section 246Section 391Section 77

…rade Marks [1998) 8 SCC 1; Siemens Ltd v State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 33; Aircel Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer (2016) 70 taxman 274 (SC) and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vishwanath Engineers v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Guj) to urge that the mere existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act would not preclude this Court from entertaining the present writ petition which according to him involved a short question of interpretation of Section 115-QA of the Act. 12. On merits, Mr Ganesh submitted that the demand was sought to be created u…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1682/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…1 Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd.,AY- 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1682/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd. Circle-10(2), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACO3006F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri Manish…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Estwhile Global Trust Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for statistical

ITA 4090/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

…Goetze (India) Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 431 (Del)(HC) 5. D. T. &T. D. C. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 234 (Del)(HC) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Eicher Limited [2012] 344 ITR 37 (Del)(HC) 7. Rabo India Finance Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 346 ITR 528 (Bom)(HC) 8. Allied Strips Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 384 ITR 0424 (Delhi) 9. Priya Desh Gupta & ANR. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. 2016) 385 ITR 0452 (Delhi) 10. Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2017] 390 ITR 67 (Guj).” I.T.A .No.-4090/Del/2014 Page 6 of 9 (D). We have heard b…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 361)(Bom.) ix) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v ACIT (377 ITR 405)(Bom.) x) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom.) xi) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 528)(Bom.) 9 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) ITA No.2961 & 2962/Mum/2014, A.Ys.2003-04 & 2005-06 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and case laws relied on. On a perusal of the reasons for reopening for both these assessment years, it is very much clear that the reasons were recor…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 547 (Bom.) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3D ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 14. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi). 25. Vishwanath Engineers v. Asst. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj). 38. SHREE RAM BUILDERS vs. ACIT (OSD) [2015] 377 ITR 631 (Guj) 39. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ACIT [2015] 371 ITR 222 (Guj) 43. XEROX MODICORP LTD. Vs DCIT [2013] 350 ITR 308 (Del) 44. ROSE SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3E ABOVE Judgement Judgement N…

Ratandevi Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…enabling him to raise the objection against initiation of proceedings under section 147. We have taken this view following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Agarwal Metals and Alloys (supra) and Robo India Finance Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2012] 346 ITR 81 (Bom.). In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the assessment order and restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer with the direction that he should communicate the reasons recorded for re–opening of assessment to the assessee for enabling him to raise objection against 10…

M/S Vijaya Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessees are allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…hrough a separate speaking order. Relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of MGM Exports v. DCIT [323 ITR 331], General Motors P. Ltd v. DCIT [354 ITR 244], as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd [346 ITR 81], Ld. AR submitted that unless and until the objections against reassessment filed by the assessees were disposed off, reassessment orders could not have been validly done. Further according to him, assessees’ request for a cross examination of Shri. Chetan Shah, Director of M/s. Ashapura Minechem Ltd, whose statement was relied on, for making the…

Lawkim Ltd ( Now Merged With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Ms. Sonali GodboleFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)

…material facts were not only disclosed but were brought to the notice of the AO and the AO had considered the same.Even if the assessment order does not by itself indicate that the AO considered the same,it would make no difference.In Rabo India Finance Ltd.(346 ITR 528),the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: "The facts thus far indicate that the respondents were aware not merely of the existence of the transactions between the petitioner and Rabobank International but also the details thereof. They also establish that the Assessing Officer had specifically considered the same.If an Assessing Officer c…

Shri Sharad D. Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2157/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…ose of the same by complying to the rules of natural justice. In this process, the procedural irregularity would be removed. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2011] 346 ITR 81 (Bom.). Learned Departmental Representative disputing the claim of the 9 Tata Communications Limited assessee that reasons were communicated to the assessee only on 29th December 2008, submitted, the Assessing Officer as per record has communicated the reasons to the assessee vide letter dated 10th December 2008, and once the letter was issued by…