Vipan Khanna v. CIT

255 ITR 220High Court2002#718 most cited

What is Vipan Khanna v. CIT authority for?

Assessment proceedings conclude and become final if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is not served within the prescribed statutory period. This case also clarified the historical position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vipan Khanna v. CIT · 255 ITR 220 · Section 143(2) notice · time limit scrutiny assessment · finality of assessment · Section 147 reassessment · scope of reassessment · reasons to believe · unconnected issues · Explanation 3 Section 147 · superseded by amendment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 148Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 13(1)(b)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 148(2)section 158bb(1)section 11(5)section 164retraction of statementsection 13(1)(c)section 158bbsection 13(1)

Judgments citing Vipan Khanna v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [PAN AABCT 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [PAN AABCT 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [PAN AABCT 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [PAN AABCT 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1608/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is…

Shri Aditya Chindalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…he objection of the assessee and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, it is not open to him to assessee income under some other issue independently; (iii) Explanation 3 to s. 147 was inserted to supersede the judgments in Vipin Khanna 255 ITR 220 (P&H) & Travancore Cements 305 ITR 170 (Ker) where it was held that the AO could not assess income in respect of issues unconnected with the issue for which the notice was issued. However, Explanation 3 does not affect the judgments in Shri. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) & Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 (P&H) where it was held that if the AO ac…

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…he objection of the assessee and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, it is not open to him to assessee income under some other issue independently; (iii) Explanation 3 to s. 147 was inserted to supersede the judgments in Vipin Khanna 255 ITR 220 (P&H) & Travancore Cements 305 ITR 170 (Ker) where it was held that the AO could not assess income in respect of issues unconnected with the issue for which the notice was issued. However, Explanation 3 does not affect the judgments in Shri. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) & Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 (P&H) where it was held that if the AO ac…

Rajesh Pradhan, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1587/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2008-09 Rajesh Pradhan Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Subash Agarwal & Ward-1(3), Central V/S. Assocaites, Siddha Gibson, Revenue Building, 1, Gibson Lane, Ssuite-213, Nayabasti, P.O. & 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin- [Pan No.Akjpp 6193 N] 735101

Section 147Section 68

…he objection of the assessee and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, it is not open to him to assessee income under some other issue independently; (iii) Explanation 3 to s. 147 was inserted to supersede the judgments in Vipin Khanna 255 ITR 220 (P&H) & Travancore Cements 305 ITR 170 (Ker) where it was held that the AO could not assess income in respect of issues unconnected with the issue for which the notice was issued. However, Explanation 3 does not affect the judgments in Shri. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) & Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 (P&H) where it was held that if the AO ac…

Amit Tyagi, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2505/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10 Amit Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), B-6 (Basement), J.S. Arcade, Ghaziabad Near Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18 Noida (Pan: Adupt6382P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Chaman Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

…erved within the stipulated period u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and deemed to have become final. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v.M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P & h) V.C. Palaniappan (2006) 284 ITR 257 (Mad), CIT v. Bhan Textiles P.Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Delhi), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) and Deputy CIT v. Mahi Vally Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj). 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the assessing officer had erred in assessing the in…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage was held to be valid. In the case of Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, therefore, su…

Swarnasathi Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1929/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2006-07

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2006-07 Swarnasathi Advisory Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Services Pvt. Ltd., Block- Ward-9(4), P-7, V/s. C, Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Chowringhee Square, 4, D.L. Khan Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-25 [PAN No.AAGCS 9358 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri M.Satnaliwala, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Baijaaaanath Singh, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 04-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assess…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage was held to be valid. In the case of Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alon…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage was held to be valid. In the case of Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alon…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage was held to be valid. In the case of Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alon…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, VICE PRESIDENT, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1485 & 1486/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11& 2011-12 M/s Solo Hardware Private ACIT, Limited, Circle-5(3)(2), बनाम/ Shop No.03, Shastri Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Pant Nagar Police M. K. Road, Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400075 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AAJCS0760R None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Chaudhary…

Shri Hartaj Sewa Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1524/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1524/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. M .Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…e objection of the assessee and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, it is not open to him to assessee income under some other issue independently; (iii) Explanation 3 to s. 147 was inserted to supersede the judgments in Vipin Khanna 255 ITR 220 (P&H) & Travancore Cements 305 ITR 170 (Ker) where it was held that the AO could not assess income in respect of issues unconnected with the issue for which the notice was issued. However, Explanation 3 does not affect the judgments in Shri. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) & Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 (P&H) where it was held that if the AO ac…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage was held to be valid. In the case of Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220, 230 (P & H), where from the depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued on…