SC in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd.

56 ITR 234Supreme Court of India1965#10942 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 50C Section 69

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosure within four years mere change of opinion live link income escaping assessment change of opinion regular assessment reopening of assessment escapement of income reason to believe scrutiny assessment reassessment proceedings

Judgments citing SC in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd.

P.PANJURAJAN,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69

…e revenue meaning thereby, the same has attained finality. Now pursuing the same controversy in the present case is not justified when vendor case is final. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234 (SC) held that it was established that once an appellate authority renders a final decision on specific items of income, the tax department cannot reopen the same items in subsequent reassessment proceedings. The court underscored that such attempts would violate the principle of legal finality, thereby ensuring judicial decisions are binding and…

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…ce which he may later regard as erroneous”. In addition to the aforesaid decision, it has been held in the following judicial pronouncements that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and ab-initio void: a) CIT v. Rao Tahkur Narayan Singh (56 ITR 234) (SC) b) CIT v. BhanjiLavji (79 ITR 582) c) Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (222 ITR 68) d) CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (263 ITR 180) e) ACIT v. Champdany Industries Ltd. (95 ITD 169) (Kol) 7 (g) Reliance is also placed on the decision Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami (ITA 112/2014) (TS-166-HC-2014-Del), where…

RAMCHANDRA DASHRATH & CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5107/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Ramchandra Dashrath & Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- F-108, Apmc Fruit Market, Sector- Vs. 22(3), 19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaffr 7250 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aasifa Khan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…04/09/2017] 6. Smt. Anchi Devi v/s. CIT [ITA No.208 of 2007 (P&H) dated 28/03/2008] 7. CIT v/s. Air Craft Radio Corporation (292 ITR 64, P&H) 8. Manoo Lal Kedarnath v. UOI (114 ITR 884, AIL.) Ramchandra Dashrath & Co. 6 9. CIT v/s. Rao Thakur Naravan Singh (56 ITR 234, SC) 10. DIT (IT)-1, v/s. Atom story export [2018] 95 taxmann.com 257, Bom 11. DIT (IT)-1, v/s. Atom story export [2018] 95 taxmann.com 260, SC(SLP dismissed) 6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening are not based on any search conducted at assessee’s premises as there was no search in assessee’s case. The Ld. AR fu…

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULATURE AND RURAL DEVELOPEMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 4277/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36

…ssessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Foramer France has held that the assessment could not be reopened on a mere change of opinion. e) CIT Vs. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (56 ITR 234) (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a mere change in opinion without any information that income has escaped assessment, does not warrant re-opening. f) CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582) (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be ent…

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,,RAIGARH(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in this regard is in total disregard to the decisions of the SC in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd, (1976) 105 ITR 212, 219 (SC); and CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234(SC). 8.2 On appraisal of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and on perusal of the orders of the CIT(A), it appears self- ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan Sukumaran vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - evident that the enhancement for the assessment year in question was carried out by the CIT(A) without giving any formal intimati…

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,,RAIGARH(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…tly arose for decision in earlier proceedings. If that were not the legal position, it would result in placing an unrestricted power of review in the hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods - CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234 , 239(SC). 17. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lai. v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), their Lordships have held while interpreting section 147 as it stood in the assessment year 1963-64:- “. . An Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of spe…

SONI SONU MIRCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1286/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ple as to the Rule of Finality of an assessment is that the A.O. cannot change his mood and try to reopen a closed state of affairs.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan vs., Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234 [SC] in the context of Rule of Finality held as under : 32 ITA.No.1286/Del./2020 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, New Delhi. “Held that as the order of the Appellate Tribunal became final, the findings of the Tribunal, even though by mistake, that the officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings in respect of the interest income also, was bind…

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhalesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(7)Section 155Section 54F

…sed to make a rectification of an error which is said to have been committed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in directing the grossing up of the dividend income of these two petitioners. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rao Thakur Narayaq Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it was not the intention of the legislature to enable the Income-tax Officer to reopen final decisions made against the revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in earlier proceedings and were finally decided by the Tribunal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court obse…

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…the intention to enable the ITO to reopen the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in earlier 2011:DHC:229-DB depending on their changing moods. ( See CIT Vs . Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal, [1993] 203 ITR 456 their Lord-ships have held while interpreting Section 147 as it stood in the assessment year 1963-64 :- "An Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliabl…