Voltas Ltd. v. ACIT

349 ITR 656High Court2012#4753 most cited

What is Voltas Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A notice issued under section 148 is time-barred and deserves to be quashed if no allegation is made against the assessee for failure to disclose material facts, and the AO's assertion of no prior assessment is contrary to the record. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 is without lawful basis in such circumstances.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Voltas Ltd v ACIT · 349 ITR 656 · reopening of assessment · section 147 · section 148 · time barred notice · failure to disclose material facts · contrary to facts on record · quashed notice

Also reported as

141 Taxmann.com 12770 DTR 433

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151(1)Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 115JBSection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatormere change of opinionchange of opinionreopening of assessmentregular assessmentreason to believesection 151notice under section 148section 142assistant commissionersection 139

Judgments citing Voltas Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3B ABOVE. Judgement Judgement Name Number 1. Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC). 2. Deputy CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 129 (SC). 3. Voltas Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom). 4. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi). 5. Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURI…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…, the AO issued a notice under section 148 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services. The Court held in favour of the appellant and reassessment was struck down. 5.1.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. v ACIT reported at 349 ITR 656, the Bombay High Court held that when a notice was issued for reopening a case after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, the AO must apply his mind to the fundamental question as to whether there has been a failure to disclose all material facts on part of assessee and that where there is no failure on part of assessee to d…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…, the AO issued a notice under section 148 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services. The Court held in favour of the appellant and reassessment was struck down. 5.1.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. v ACIT reported at 349 ITR 656, the Bombay High Court held that when a notice was issued for reopening a case after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, the AO must apply his mind to the fundamental question as to whether there has been a failure to disclose all material facts on part of assessee and that where there is no failure on part of assessee to d…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…, the AO issued a notice under section 148 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services. The Court held in favour of the appellant and reassessment was struck down. 5.1.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. v ACIT reported at 349 ITR 656, the Bombay High Court held that when a notice was issued for reopening a case after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, the AO must apply his mind to the fundamental question as to whether there has been a failure to disclose all material facts on part of assessee and that where there is no failure on part of assessee to d…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…, the AO issued a notice under section 148 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services. The Court held in favour of the appellant and reassessment was struck down. 5.1.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. v ACIT reported at 349 ITR 656, the Bombay High Court held that when a notice was issued for reopening a case after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, the AO must apply his mind to the fundamental question as to whether there has been a failure to disclose all material facts on part of assessee and that where there is no failure on part of assessee to d…