Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT

117 Taxmann.com 96High Court2020#270 most cited

What is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

291

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT · education cess deduction · dividend distribution tax deduction · allowable expenditure · section 40(a)(ii) · cess allowability · DDT allowability · Bombay High Court · 423 ITR 426 · income tax deduction

Also reported as

423 ITR 426

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 40(a)(ii)Section 234BSection 115JBSection 270ASection 43BSection 155(18)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(4)section 115wasection 40(a)(ii)section 2(43)section 115wsection 2(11)section 135far analysisprohibited by lawsection 194hdividend distribution taxsection 40(a)

Judgments citing Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd

ITTA/521/2017HC Telangana11 Sept 2017

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 491/2017 M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited, Having its address at E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur and through its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor now through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Ambedka…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

ITTA/519/2017HC Telangana21 Aug 2017

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 491/2017 M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited, Having its address at E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur and through its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor now through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Ambedka…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

ITTA/494/2017HC Telangana03 Aug 2017

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 491/2017 M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited, Having its address at E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur and through its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor now through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Ambedka…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1566/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 147

…nd truly disclose material facts. If reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of a subsequent judicial decision, then that would also be a case of change of opinion, as was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT, 294 ITR 101 (Bom) on which reliance was placed by ld. counsel for the assessee. 22. In the present case, the facts on record and reasons recorded clearly show that all facts were available before the AO when he completed the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There is no tangible material which has come to the possession of the AO justif…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…aterial facts. In these circumstances, and for the reasons that are stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the fundamental condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years has not been fulfilled. 9A. In Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 101/[2008] 168 Taxman 281 (Bom.) a Division Bench of this Court has held that a subsequent decision of a Court cannot justify the reopening of an assessment after a period of four years by itself, as the subsequent decision would not necessarily mean that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…aterial facts. In these circumstances, and for the reasons that are stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the fundamental condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years has not been fulfilled. 9A. In Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 101/[2008] 168 Taxman 281 (Bom.) a Division Bench of this Court has held that a subsequent decision of a Court cannot justify the reopening of an assessment after a period of four years by itself, as the subsequent decision would not necessarily mean that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…aterial facts. In these circumstances, and for the reasons that are stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the fundamental condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years has not been fulfilled. 9A. In Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 101/[2008] 168 Taxman 281 (Bom.) a Division Bench of this Court has held that a subsequent decision of a Court cannot justify the reopening of an assessment after a period of four years by itself, as the subsequent decision would not necessarily mean that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…aterial facts. In these circumstances, and for the reasons that are stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the fundamental condition for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years has not been fulfilled. 9A. In Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 101/[2008] 168 Taxman 281 (Bom.) a Division Bench of this Court has held that a subsequent decision of a Court cannot justify the reopening of an assessment after a period of four years by itself, as the subsequent decision would not necessarily mean that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/205/2015HC Karnataka16 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…terial facts. If reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of a subsequent judicial decision, then that would also be a case of 29 change of opinion, as was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT, 294 ITR 101 (Bom) on which reliance was placed by ld. counsel for the assessee. 22. In the present case, the facts on record and reasons recorded clearly show that all facts were available before the AO when he completed the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There is no tangible material which has come to the possession…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Scinida P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

ITA 7071/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ial facts. Suo-moto, the assessee disclosed all the relevant details pertaining to non compete fee. Further, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents on the issue of reassessment u/s.147 which are listed as under: - (i) Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2007) 294 ITR 101 (ii) German Remedies Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom) (iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (iv) CIT vs. Holck Larsen 85 ITR 467 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (vi) N.C. Gupta vs. ACIT (2004) 90 ITD 768 (Del.) (vii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 300 ITR 276 (Bom.) 6. By the impugned or…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. M/S Post & Bsnl Employees

The appeal is dismissed

RP/205/2015HC Karnataka24 Jul 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…terial facts. If reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of a subsequent judicial decision, then that would also be a case of 29 change of opinion, as was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT, 294 ITR 101 (Bom) on which reliance was placed by ld. counsel for the assessee. 22. In the present case, the facts on record and reasons recorded clearly show that all facts were available before the AO when he completed the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There is no tangible material which has come to the possession…