Techspan India Pvt Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

283 ITR 212High Court2006#17587 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(3)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

mere change of opinion change of opinion reopening of assessment notice under section 148 section 142(1)section 143(2)section 148 section 147 section 14 section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing Techspan India Pvt Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…n the approval, the PCIT has given the satisfaction for re-opening of the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, after verifying the reasons recorded by the AO. 5.2.1 Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Techspan India Pvt Ltd vs Income Tax Officer 283 ITR 212 Delhi held that *..... The other aspect regarding which / wish to strike a note of caution is that before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the Court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier concluded has either expressly or by necessary implication ex…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

ITO-19(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRITI BHARAT PAREKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…law on the point that mere change of opinion cannot be per se reason to reopen as under:- German Remedies Ltd vs. DCIT & Ors (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom.) Siemens Information System Ltd vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (BOM) Techspan India (P) Ltd & Anr Vs. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Del) (Assessment Year 2001-2002) Karthikeya International vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All) Godrej Agrovet Ltd 323 ITR 97 (Bom) Aakash Land Developers ITA No. 7350/M/2008 & 7351/M/2008 dated 29/10/2010 6.22 Further, the provisions of sec 147 of the Act can be applied wherein in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessme…

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Jal Hotel Co. Ltd vs ADIT (2009) 184 Taxman 1 (Delhi High Court) 5. Jindal Photo Films Ltd vs Deputy CIT (1988) 234 ITR 170 (Delhi High 6. Court) Page 6 of 11 Reopening of assessment on a mere change of opinion is invalid Techspan India Pvt Ltd v ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Delhi 7. High Court) CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (Supreme 8. Court) Legato System (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (2010) (187 Taxman 9. 294) (Delhi High Court) CIT Vs Ramakrishna Hegde (326 ITR 347) (2010) (Karnataka 10. High Court) Reassessment based on audit objection is void ab initio Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

ITA 1559/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14

…ry. Now the assessee has been served with notice u/s.147 of the Act stating that the deduction u/s 10B was not allowable. The reassessment proceedings initiated on this ground are not valid reliance is placed in the case of Techspan India P Ltd. V. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Del) Siemens Information System Ltd. V. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom). Thus, the action u/s.147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 is not legal. Thus from the above it is inferred that the assessee has not agreed before the AO for the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act as alleged by the learned CIT (A) in his order as discussed abov…