United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

236 ITR 832High Court1999#1072 most cited

What is United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The case clarifies that 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment under Section 147 does not demand final legal proof of income escapement but requires the Assessing Officer to form a belief based on examination or information, particularly when a mistake or error is detected, which is distinct from a mere change of opinion.

102

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 236 ITR 832 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · mere change of opinion · scope of reassessment · final ascertainment of facts · belief formation · tangible material · mistake or error

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosuremere change of opinionkelvinatorchange of opinionprincipal officerlive linkincome escaping assessmentsection 144c(1)reason to believeescapement of incomeborrowed satisfactiontangible material

Judgments citing United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…aid to have reason to believe that income has escaped\nassessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing\nofficer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or\nconclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT,\n[236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while interpreting the term 'reason\nto believe', held that, the word \"reason to believe\" cannot mean that the\nAO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only\nmean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he\nlikes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or find…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5601/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…aid to have reason to believe that income has escaped\nassessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing\nofficer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or\nconclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT,\n[236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while interpreting the term 'reason\nto believe', held that, the word \"reason to believe\" cannot mean that the\nAO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only\nmean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he\nlikes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or find…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5599/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…be said to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT, [236 ITR 832], the hon’ble court while interpreting the term 'reason to believe', held that, the word "reason to believe" cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he likes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds or P…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5586/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251Section 263

…aid to have reason to believe that income has escaped\nassessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing\nofficer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or\nconclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT,\n[236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while interpreting the term 'reason\nto believe', held that, the word \"reason to believe\" cannot mean that the\nAO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only\nmean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he\nlikes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or find…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…be said to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT, [236 ITR 832], the hon’ble court while interpreting the term 'reason to believe', held that, the word "reason to believe" cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he likes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds or P…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5584/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…aid to have reason to believe that income has escaped\nassessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing\nofficer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or\nconclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT,\n[236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while interpreting the term 'reason\nto believe', held that, the word \"reason to believe\" cannot mean that the\nAO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only\nmean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he\nlikes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or find…

SAMIR PATODIA (HUF),FADIA BUILDING ,RAMWADI, MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-7(2),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarsamir Patodia (Huf), V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Fadia Building No. 3, Caval बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Cross Lane 4 Ramwaldi, 7(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhs8769K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…be said to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT, [236 ITR 832], the hon’ble court while interpreting the term 'reason to believe', held that, the word “reason to believe” cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he likes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds or s…

SUNIL PATODIA (HUF),RAMWALDI, KALBADEVI RD. MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…A No. 5732/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2018-19\nSunil Patodia(HUF)\nassessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing\nofficer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or\nconclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT,\n[236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while interpreting the term 'reason to\nbelieve', held that, the word “reason to believe” cannot mean that the AO\nshould have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only\nmean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he\nlikes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds…

M/S REAL TIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 3290/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Rushabh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147

…aid to have reason to believe\nthat income has escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to\nmean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact\nby legal evidence or conclusion. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs.\nM.J.Makwana Vs. CIT, [236 ITR 832], the hon'ble court while\ninterpreting the term 'reason to believe', held that, the word \"reason to\nbelieve\" cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the\nfacts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the\nexamination he makes and, if he likes, from any information that he\nreceives. If he discovers or fin…

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1079/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountnat Member Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…the petitioner that the respondent authority has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it involved only a mere change of opinion." This court in Praful Chunilal Patel Vs M. J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 has observed in this behalf while interpreting the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act that the expression "reason to believe” which are relied on behalf of the respondents" are also material for reinforcing the view which we are taking in this group of petitions. In cases where an error or mistake is detected, it can never be said t…

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

…d Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us.…

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

…d Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us.…

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. Ita No. 3676/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4057/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) 5. Ita No. 3677/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) Dcit Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Bkc, C-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J ........ Respondent & 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17) 7. Ita No. 569/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) 8. Ita No. 570/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Bkc, C-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J ..... Appellant 2

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

…there was no new material available before the AO for reopening the assessment without appreciating that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in ALA Firm (1991) 55 Taxman 497 (SC) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) that where mistake in assessment is caused by either an erroneous construction of transaction or due to its non-consideration, or caused by mistake of law, even if there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which a correct assessment could have been based, would not amount to being on account of change of opinion and o…

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. Ita No. 3676/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4057/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2017-18) 5. Ita No. 3677/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2018-19) Dcit Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai- 400 020. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Вкс, С-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J Vs. & Appellant 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17) 7. Ita No. 569/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2017-18) 8. Ita No. 570/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2018-19) M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Вкс, С-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J Respondent . Appellant

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

…there was no new material available before the AO for reopening the assessment without appreciating that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in ALA Firm (1991) 55 Taxman 497 (SC) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) that where mistake in assessment is caused by either an erroneous construction of transaction or due to its non-consideration, or caused by mistake of law, even if there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which a correct assessment could have been based, would not amount to being on account of change of opinion and o…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…a larger Bench of that Court, regardless of the fact that another High Court prefers a different view [in this case that of the Gujarat High Court as in Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 482, Praful Chunilal Patel v. M. J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (No. 1) [1996] 222 ITR 27 (Guj.). The Full Bench of this Court has taken into consideration both Praful Chunilal Patel's case (supra) as well as Garden Silk Mills Ltd. 's case (supra). In Kelvinator of India's Ltd. 's case (supra) the Full Bench had also I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Asses…

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3049/AHD/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 3049 & 3050/Ahd/2010 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (1998-1999 & 1999 & 2000) Gujarat Industries Power Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, P.O Petrochemicals, Circle-1(1), Baroda-391346. Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 147Section 148

…sion about it in the assessment order and certainly there no formation of opinion on the said issue. In the case of Praful Chunilal Patel vs. M.J.Makwana, ITA nos.3049 & 3050/Rjt/2010 A.Y.s 1998-99 & 1999 & 2000 3 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under:- “....... Since the Assessing Officer at the first assessment in the year 1991-92 never really formed an opinion on the question whether there was a transfer on September 19, 1990, of the land in question to the firm and that the amounts credited to the accounts of the partners who had contribu…

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. EAST WEST PIPELINE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, without any adjudication upon the merits, Ground No. 5 to 8 to raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1999/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 73(1)

…(A) is justified in law in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in ALA Firm [1991] 55 Taxman 497 (SC)) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PrafulChunilal Patel [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) have upheld the legal proposition that where mistake in assessment is caused by either an erroneous construction of transaction or due to its non-consideration, or caused by a mistake of law applicable, reopening would not amount to being on account of change of opinion and ought to be treated as valid even where there has been a complete…

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6