How many judgments cite Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (370 ITR 135), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 10AA, Section 115JB, Section 40A(2)(b).

Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT

370 ITR 135High Court2015#2869 most cited

What is Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT authority for?

For a reassessment initiated beyond four years, if the reasons recorded for reassessment do not allege a failure by the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts, the Revenue cannot later contend such a failure to justify the reassessment. The basis for reassessment must be explicitly stated in the initial reasons supplied to the assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT · Section 147 · Section 143(3) · reassessment beyond four years · true and full disclosure · material facts disclosure · reasons recorded for reassessment · basis for reassessment notice · Bombay High Court · failure to disclose

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 10AA Section 115JB Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)full and true disclosure beyond four years true and full disclosure circular trading section 151(2)initial assessment year fresh tangible material section 10aa computer software mere change of opinion section 144c(1)

Judgments citing Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Abir Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2068/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. PAN – AAFC3608N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M. Dayasagar Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu Date of hearing: 27/05/2021 Date of pronouncement: 11/06/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, AM: This appeal of the Revenue for AY 2010-11 is directed against the CIT(A) - 11, Hyderabad’s order, dated 24/07/2018 invo…

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2455/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA No. 105/Kol/2015, order dated 31.05.2017 considered the legal issue and the propositions of law laid down by various High Courts and held as follows: “4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

Om Praaksh Singh, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

…t inasmuch as they do not undertake that there was a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments.” 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of 9 Om Prakash Singh Assessment Year: 2009-10…

Johnson & Johnson Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 4912/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…assessment has been reopened beyond 4 years it is mandatory that one of the conditions set out in proviso to section 147 are satisfied. To support his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, 370 ITR 135 (Bom.) (2) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) (3) Akshar Anshul Construction LLP vs. Asstt. CIT, 264 Taxman 65 (Bom.) (4) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 106 ITR 1(SC) 3.2. The third argument of ld. Authorized Representative of the assesse against reopening is that the Assessing Officer while taking permission fr…

ACIT (OSD), Ward - 12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 365/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…t inasmuch as they do not undertake that there was a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments.” 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 231/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…t inasmuch as they do not undertake that there was a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments.” 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

H, L.G.Memorial Hospital (P) Ltd., Asansol vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Asansol

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2603/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows: 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failu…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. V2 Retail Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 723/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…imilar issue in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT CC-XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dtd. 31/05/2017 held as follows: “4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

V2 Retail Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 611/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Indian Wire and Steel Products, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow

ITA 1160/KOL/2019[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2Nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaafi 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 250

…105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows: 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that the…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…kata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 4.4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows: reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- "10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that "10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that "10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was an…

ACIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mala Roy & Others, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Aries Agro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…nts:- 1. CIT vs. Foramer France [(2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC)] 2. Precilion Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT (IT) [(2019) 103 taxmann.com 291 (Bom)] 3. DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. [(2017) 394-ITR 547 (Delhi)] 4. Tao Publishing (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2015) 370 ITR 135 [(Bom)] 5. Sound Casting (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom.)] 6. Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.)] 7. Titanor Components Limited vs. ACIT [(2011) 60 DTR 273 (Bom.)] 8. German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)] 9. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B.Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] 10. The Ld. DR, on…

M/S. Maa Tara Agro Industries, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 233/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Maa Tara Agro Industries……………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Vill. + P.O. Satitara Murshidabad – 742 132 [Pan : Aamfm 5316 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Murshidabad...........................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

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

…this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT CC-XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd……………....……………....…………………….....Appellant 51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Aalcs 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 156Section 250

…f the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT CC-XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- "10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2437/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal...…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No.-27 4Th Floor 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan :Adcpa 9872 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata...........................................................……………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Sri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 18Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…f the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT CC-XXX, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2015, order dt. 31/05/2017, held as follows: 4.4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.), has held as follows:- “10. As stated above, the reasons supplied to the Petitioner do not disclose that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was no…

Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd ( Kochi Refineries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(1) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2826/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2000-01 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tiresh Dave, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Bharat Petroleum The Asstt. Comm. of Corp. Ltd., (Kochi Income Tax, Refineries Limited), Circle 2(1), Bharat Bhavan Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Mumbai Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACB2902M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tiresh Dave, A.R. Shri N.A. Patade, A.R. R…

M/S. Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Adhunik Cement Ltd., (Now Dalmia Bharat Cement), Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Chemito Tehcnologies P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4644/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-7(3) M/S Chemito Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Road, 8, Mohatta Bhavan, Off Mumbai-400020. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aaact1930B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

…8 by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that there was a full disclosure by the assessee in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2005. He relies inter alia on the decision in Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom), Sound Casting (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom), Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom), Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of reassessment. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and peru…