Tanita Construction Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

257 ITR 84High Court2002#11377 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Tanita Construction Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Private Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 1413/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

…tio. We draw support for this proposition from the following decisions: • Foramer vs. CIT (2001) 119 Taxman 61 (Allahabad High Court) {SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2003) 264 ITR 566 (Supreme Court) • Tanita Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2002) 257 ITR 84 (Calcutta High Court) • Eagle Fashion (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 30 taxmann.com 79 (Guj) • CIT vs. Sonitpur Solves Ltd. (2013) ITA No.30 of 2011 (Guwahati) • Himson Textile Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 528 (Gujarat) • Rambagh Palace Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 660 (Delhi)] • Sadhbav Engineering Ltd. vs D…

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1299/DEL/2020[206-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

M/S Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 107/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata 37/2, Chinar Park New Town Hatiara Rajarhat Main Road Kolkata - 7000157 Pan : Aaecs0373H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 26 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Reopening U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…2008-09 M/s. Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. 3  Ceebuild Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No. 1266/Kol/2019] dt. 05.01.2022 (ITAT Kolkata)  DCIT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. [ITA No. 634/Kol/2013] dt. 07/09/2016 (ITAT Kolkata)  Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [257 ITR 84]  Peerless Hospitex Hospital and Research Centre vs. PCIT [137 Taxmann.com 359]  Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT [343 ITR 183] 6. Om the second plea , the ld. A/R contended that the objections filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…. Therefore, the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 147 are not fulfilled. In this context, the Appellant relies on the following Decisions [PB-Vol.1-Pages 128 to 153] (i) Northern Exim (P) Ltd -357 ITR 586 (Del) (ii) Tantia Constructions Co Ltd -257 ITR 84 (Cal) Pages-128 to 153 :- 8 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (iii) 5abharwal properties industries (P) Ltd -382 ITR 547 (Del) (iv) AV TEe Ltd -395 ITR 434 (Del) 7.5 The earned PClT, Central has mechanically and without application of mind has approved the proposal of AO to reopen the assessment. The reas…

M/S. Bharti Cellular Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…, as it stood at the relevant time." (emphasis supplied by us). 5.5 We also draw support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT DCIT & Ors as reported in [2002] 257 ITR 84 (Kol) wherein it was held as under: "But, in the present case, the reasons disclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition admittedly only show escapement of assessment and that too according to the explanation of the law by the apex court subsequent to the assessment. There is no material that the second requirement of failure on the part of the peti…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2157/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2157/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.................……………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aadcb 3247 J] M/S Adhunik Power & Natural Resources...............................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Halder, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…there has been a failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts must be concluded with certain level of certainty.” 7. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors (2002) 257 ITR 84 (Cal) held that, in the absence of an allegation that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for assessment, the impugned notice u/s 148 issued after the expiry of four years from the end of concerned assessment year re-opening the assessment is bad in law. 8. Applying the propositions…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1319/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2006-2007

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80ISection 80l

…nd so, Ld. CIT(A) rightly annulled the reopening of regular assessment u/s. 148/147 and subsequent reassessment order of the AO is, therefore, null in the eyes of law. We note that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 257 ITR 84 (Cal) has approved the ratio as laid above. Since legal issue raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has been held in its favour, the revenue’s challenge before us fails and, therefore, the merits of the additions become academic in nature. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order i…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Cir - 5, Kolkata.

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

ITA 357/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Akash MansingkaFor Respondent: Shri Angan Shaiza, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…Coal India Limited., AY 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A No. 357/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Coal India Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (PAN:AABCC3929J) Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A. No.1320/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Coal India Limited Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 20.09.2016 Date of pronouncement: 28.09.2016 For the Assessee: Shri Akash Mansingka, For the Respondent: Shri Angan Shaiza, C…

Epcos India Private Limited, Nadia vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1921/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 1998-99 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-11, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6950 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the 7 8 Epcos India Pvt.Ltd. A.Yr.1998-99 purpose of assessment. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tantia Construction Co Ltd -vs.- DCIT (2002) 257 ITR 84 (Cal) wherein it was held that two primary conditions by which the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year is not fulfilled, therefore the notice u/s 148 cannot be held to be valid as they were issued after the expiry of four years from the last date of the concerned assessment year…