How many judgments cite Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (52 SOT 465), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 28.

Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

52 SOT 465Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#9831 most cited

What is Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

An assessment order passed without supplying the complete reasons for reopening is invalid and liable to be set aside as it violates the principles of natural justice, as the assessee is entitled to know the basis for the Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · 52 SOT 465 · ITAT Mumbai · reopening of assessment · reasons for reopening · non-supply of reasons · violation of natural justice · Section 147 · Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 28 Section 69C

Judgments citing Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

M. Abbas & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(2), Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang& Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Josshi, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 69C

…ctually recorded by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the entire proceeding of reopening assessment vitiates. Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions and finding therein: “NO SUPPLY OF ACTUAL REASONS RECORDED 1. Tata International Ltd. v. DCIT [(2012) 52 SOT 465 (Mumbai) It is settled proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court that the reasons as recorded by the Assessing Officer are required to be furnished to the assessee and the reasons recorded cannot be improved upon or amended by any correspondence, letters etc. It is an undisputed fact that the reasons actua…

Parametric Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 84/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…der passed o without supplying the complete reasons to the assessee is not valid and liable to be set-aside. He has relied upon the decision dt. 29.06.12 of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Tata International Limited vs. Dy. CIT in I.T.A.Nos. 52 SOT 465 and submitted that an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal, wherein the AO did not supply the complete reasons for reopening of the assessment but only gist of the reasons supplied to the assessee. The Tribunal has held that it is a violation of principles of Page 5 of 25 Prametric Trading Co.P.Ltd.,Indore 6 A.Y.2011-12 natural…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…t of non-receipt of actual recorded reasons and in support, reliance was placed on Co-ordinate ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 15 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur Benches decision in case of Tata International Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum.) (Trib). 23. In his submissions, the ld PCIT/D/R submitted that firstly, the contention of the ld A/R that the Assessing Officer has not supplied copy of reason actually recorded by Assessing Officer is factually not correct and our reference was drawn to the APB pages 23-27 wherein the Assessing officer letter dated 19.07.2018 issued to th…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Janak Shantilal Mehta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1372/Mds/2017 $नधा!रण वष! /Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज! माथन, "या$यक सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1372/Mds/2017 $नधा!रण वष! /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Shri Janak Shantilal Mehta, The Asst. Commissioner of No.3, Rajamannar Street, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Non-Corporate Circle-1, Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AACPM 7952 R] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T.Banusekar, CA ()यथ' क* ओर से /Respo…

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashik Ali Husain Ali Unwala, Mumbai

ITA 1787/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 1787/Mum/2017 & C.O No. 204/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year’S: 2010-11) Ito 20(1)(2), Ist Floor, R.No. Ashik Ali Husain Ali Unwala, 119, Piramal Chambers, बिधम/ Vs. Veena Beena Apts, A D Marg, Lalbuag Parel, Mumbai- Sewree, Mumbai-400015 400012 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aajpu6627H (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. C.V. DharkanFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh K. Rai, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…s that the A.O had failed to make available the complete ‘reasons to believe’ on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened. We find that a coordinate bench of the ITAT, ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of Tata International Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2012) 52 SOT 465 (Mum) had held that where an assessee had applied for the copy of the ‘reasons to believe’, then the A.O remains under a statutory obligation to make available the copy of the reasons actually recorded by the A.O as per Sec. 148(2), and the failure on the part of the A.O to furnish the reasons actually recorded for reopening the assessment prior t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mavrick Sweet and Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is decided on ground No

ITA 2942/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Mavrick Sweet & Foods Ltd, Vs. Ward-6(3), M/S. D. Ostwal & Associates, New Delhi Ca, 303-304, Dakha Chambers, 2008, Hs Nalwa Street No. 38, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4663N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Otwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd., has been dismissed by Apex Court, vide order dated July 16, 2007. Coordinate Benches followed the above decisions and quashed the reassessment proceedings in the following cases : I. Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 52 SOT 465 (Mum.) II. Telco Dadajee Dhakjee Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.) (TM) Page 4 of 4 III. Muller & Philips (India) Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org IV. Jeevanlal Jain ITA No. 910/M/2014 dt 13-1-2016, Bench J; (Mum.) (Trib.) 06 However, in view of contrasting claims made by the parties about filing of the letter dated 18/4/2011 by the assessee befor…

Sri Bikramjit Paul, Uttar Dinajpur vs. DCIT, Cir-II, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 148

…f CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd., has been dismissed by Apex Court, vide order dated July 16,2007. The Mumbai ITAT followed the above decision and quashed the reassessment proceedings in the following cases: • Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 52 SOT 465 (Mum.) • Telco Dadajee Dhakjee Ltd. v. DClT (Mum.) (TM) - itatonline.org • Muller & Phi lips (India) Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.}(Trib.); www.itatonline.org • Jeevanlal Jain ITA No. 910/M/2014 dt 13-1-2016, Bench J; (Mum.) (Trib.). 4. The ld. D.R. relied on the decision of the Delhi ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-11(6), New Delhi –vs.-…

Ratandevi Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

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

…sing Officer can proceed 5 Smt. Ratnadevi Kataria to frame an assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Tata International Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum.); ii) CIT v/s Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) 7. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted, before initiation of proceeding under section 147, the Assessing Officer has complied to the statutory formalities by recording the reasons for re–opening. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the r…

Shri Sharad D. Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2157/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…urt in CIT v/s Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. v/s ITO, [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Tata International Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum.). Further, learned counsel submitted, the reasons communicated to the assessee on 29th December 2008, is in variance with the reasons recorded at the time of re–opening of assessment under section 147 which is evident from the reasons subsequently communicated to the assessee on 16th January 2014. He submitted, while the reasons communicated…

Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Muller & Philpps (India) Ito 2 (2)(2) Ltd. 221, Unique Indl. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate Off Veer Savarkar Vs. Marg Prabhadevi Mumbai- Mumbai-400025. (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacm324N

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55(2)

…ening of the assessment and cannot frame reassessment order. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.), Tata International Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum)., Synopsys International vs. DDIT ITA no.549/Bang/2011 dt. 10.12.2012 (Bang.)(Trib.), CIT vs. Rajindra Roshin & Turpentine Industries (2008) 305 ITR 161 (P&H) (162) and Rajoo Engg. vs Dy. CIT (2008) 218 CTR 53(Guj). It was thus argued that the reopening is without mandate of law and 5 Muller & Philpps Ltd. resultant reassessment order is nu…