Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT, Kol)

98 ITD 78Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#8210 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Judgments citing Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT, Kol)

KAJAL BATRA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-52(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

…missible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciating law as held by Hon'bl Kolkatta ITAT in the case of Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78. i. It may also be appreciated that failure to disclose fully and truly material facts would empower the assessing officer to reopen the cases and sufficiency of reason for forming the belief is not for the assessee to judge. The reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 2. Phool Chand Ba…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs. CHIRANJEEVI WIND ENERGY LIMITED, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1879/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1, 45/3A, Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Opp. To Bala Lodge, Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-8761-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1879/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT M/s. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1, 45/3A, Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Opp. to Bala Lodge, Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC-8761-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaragha…

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR
Section 148

…e of the original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinion." question of change of opinion." The Hon'ble The Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in case of SomDutt Builders (P) ITAT, Kolkata in case of SomDutt Builders (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT( ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78 had held the reopening of Ltd. Vs DCIT( ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78 had held the reopening of Ltd. Vs DCIT( ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78 had held the reopening of assessment is valid stating that change of opinion comes to assessment is valid stating that change of opinion comes to assessment is valid stating that change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee onl…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MERAMAN H. PARMAR,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 234ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271dSection 288

…e further pointed out that the officer has not taken only the best possible view in absence of any material on record. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd V/s. DCIT (1TAT, Kolkata) 98 ITD 78, In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C1T V/s. P.V.S. Beedies P. Ltd. (SC) 237 ITR 13 have held that the position of law pointed out even by internal audit party constitutes valid reason for re-opening the assessment. Moreover, this view has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4938/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gurjit Batra and Shri S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings and that a wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciating law, Reopening was held valid:- Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78.” Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78.” Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78.” Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78.” (3) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) fairly accepted that assessment was reopened and notice U/s 148 of I.T. Act…

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

ITA 633/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269Section 53ASection 54

…2014 after recording reasons cannot be said change of opinion. The decision relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts in the case of the appellant. The reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT, Kolkata, Bench in the case of Som Dutt Buildurs 98 ITD 78 wherein it has been held that change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when assessing officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceeding and held that re-opening is valid. ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Srinivasa Computers Ltd. 107 ITD 357 held that "There is no bar in issuing a second notice u/s 148 when th…

MOHD. ZAMMER CUTTERWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54G

…by the AO, that the assessee had not raised the ground about the audit objections before the AO or the FAA, that any fact brought out by the audit party was a valid ground for reopening the assessment. She relied upon the case of Somdutt Builders Private Ltd.(98 ITD 78), PVS Beedies Private Ltd.(237 ITR 13) and Rajesh Jhaveri Stockbrokers Private Ltd.(161 taxman 316), that AO had deliberated over the issue once it was pointed out by the revenue audit, that the fact that tax was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act from the file of some other assessee, that the information was not available before the AO at the time…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…that the assessee did not produce relevant documents and information before the AO and to that extent, the income has escaped assessment. In addition to this, ld. DR for the revenue has also relied on the following judgments :- i) Som Datt Builders (P) Ltd., 98 ITD 78 (Kol) :- From the perusal of section 147, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer is well empowered to reopen the case within four years even the assessment has been framed under section 143(3) and since initiation of reassessment proceedings were initiated well within time to recompute the allowance wrongly allowed, the action of the Assessing…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…that the assessee did not produce relevant documents and information before the AO and to that extent, the income has escaped assessment. In addition to this, ld. DR for the revenue has also relied on the following judgments :- i) Som Datt Builders (P) Ltd., 98 ITD 78 (Kol) :- From the perusal of section 147, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer is well empowered to reopen the case within four years even the assessment has been framed under section 143(3) and since initiation of reassessment proceedings were initiated well within time to recompute the allowance wrongly allowed, the action of the Assessing…

M/S. ELLORE JEWEL PLACE,BANGALORE vs. ITO-WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm is

ITA 1646/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Km/S. Ellore Jewel Palace, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 620, Avenue Road, Ward-2(2), Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 002. Now: Ward-5(2)(1), Pan : Aaafe3111A Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 14Section 143(1)Section 148

…ng officer has taken on permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciation of law. Reopening valid, Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78. In view of the above discussed judicial pronouncements, the ground taken on the reopening of the assessment is hereby dismissed. Page 5 of 9 8. As the third ground is related to the second ground which has already been adjudicated in the above paras, no separate adjudication is needed. The third ground is raised without prejudice to the above two…

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMELRY ZEE TELEFILMS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7005/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Kishnadwala & Jay Bhansali –ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)

…by the AO, that the assessee had not raised the ground about the audit objections before the AO or the FAA, that any fact brought out by the audit party was a valid ground for reopening the assessment. She relied upon the case of Somdutt Builders Private Ltd.(98 ITD 78), PVS Beedies Private Ltd.(237 ITR 13) and Rajesh Jhaveri Stockbrokers Private Ltd.(161 taxman 316), that AO had deliberated over the issue once it was pointed out by the revenue audit, that the fact that tax was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act from the file of some other assessee, that the information was not available before the AO at the time…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 28. On careful consideration of above, first of all we may point out that in the case of Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, 98 ITD 78 [Kol] ITAT Kolkata Bench ‘C’ held that reopening of a case by the AO on the basis of substantial pointed out by the Revenue audit is permissible under law and change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only where the AO has taken one of the permissible view at the time of original proceedings and a wrong appreciation of facts and law cannot b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 28. On careful consideration of above, first of all we may point out that in the case of Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, 98 ITD 78 [Kol] ITAT Kolkata Bench ‘C’ held that reopening of a case by the AO on the basis of substantial pointed out by the Revenue audit is permissible under law and change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only where the AO has taken one of the permissible view at the time of original proceedings and a wrong appreciation of facts and law cannot b…

ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERLON SYNTHETICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of ALA Firm v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 622(Mad.) , Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Revathy CP Equipment Limited v. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 856(Mad.) and in the case of Som Dutt Builders Private Limited v. DCIT (2006)98 ITD 78(Kol). The ld. D.R. submitted that there is no necessity that the information which is received by the A.O. should be an external information for reopening of concluded assessments u/s 147/1148 ITA 6965/Mum/2013 17 of the Act .The ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (1976)102 ITR…