Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. DCIT

350 ITR 308High Court2013#9711 most cited

What is Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an audit party's objection are impermissible as they constitute borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Xerox Modicorp Ltd v DCIT · 350 ITR 308 · reassessment · audit party objection · borrowed satisfaction · section 148

Judgments citing Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. DCIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e of Indian & News Paper Society Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC), CIT Vs. Sat Ram Mangat Ram (2009) 312 ITR 100 held that the reopening based on audit objections is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 308 has also decided the issue in similar lines. 10.6 The ld.CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the reasons for reopening in the order and after referring to the reasons recorded which itself clearly stated the purchase of trees, Kacha houses and cost of construction which was duly indexed and the capital loss was computed by the assessee. The reason…

Satyamurti Ramasundar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & Arta Trana Panda, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…. To buttress this proposition, learned counsel placed reliance on several decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi and 13 SatyamurtiRamasundar A.Y. 2012-13 others other Hon’ble High Courts, including Xerox Modi Corps Ltd. Vs. DCIT[2013] 350 ITR 308 (Del) and Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. Vs. DCIT[2016] 381 ITR 387. 8.1 We have perused the material referred by the learned counsel and also considered the judicial precedents cited before us and are convinced on the proposition so made. Resorting to reassessment proceedings at the behest of audit party objection tantamount to borrowed satis…

Income Tax 11(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Sonu Synthetic Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5291/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

…ty and to give effect to the said objection. It has been argued that the audit Objections cannot be considered to be the external tangible material for the purpose of reopening as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd v/s DCIT 350 ITR 308. The assessment was reopened based on the audit objections can not be said to be valid. In this regards the reliance has been placed the appellant on the decisions in the case of CIT v/s Lucas T.V.S. Limited. 249 ITR 306 (SC), Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v/s. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanawala HUF v/s ITO 287 ITR 443 ( Born.…

Moser Baer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5268/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…basis beyond the period of limitation of four years is not sustainable being based on change of opinion. The ld. AR also relied on the following judgments : (i). Coperion Ideal Private Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 525 (Del) (ii). Xerox Modicorp Limited vs. DCIT, 350 ITR 308(Del) (iii). CIT vs. Viniyas Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 646. He further submitted that in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, the coordinate bench of Tribunal had accepted that the payment made for technical knowhow is royalty payment to IP owners. He, therefore, submitted that the ld. Authorities below are not just…

ACIT, Sambalpur vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 395/CTK/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32A

…the mining activities are within the purview of manufacture and production of articles and things. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd., 350 ITR 308. The Ld. CIT(A) having considered the facts and judicial decisions and finding of the AO dealt at page 3 to 5 of the order and after considering the decision of jurisdictional High Court where the reassessment proceedings is in the nature of change of opinion and supported his views relying on the plethora of decisions and quashed the reassessmen…

Mayur P Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1640/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Mayur P Jain Income Tax Officer 1101 Chaitya Tower 81, Shivdas Ward No. 22(2)(2) Chapsi Marg, Mazgaon Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 010 Pan No. Aegpj1871E Appellant .. Respondent .. Dr. P Daniel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…objection he relied on the decision of the Page 5 of 10 Mayur P Jain; A.Y: 09-10 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom), Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 308 (Delhi) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj) and also Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of 247 ITR (13) SC and 102 ITR 287 SC. 7. I have heard the rival con…

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

…002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi). 25. Vishwanath Engineers v. Asst. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj). 38. SHREE RAM BUILDERS vs. ACIT (OSD) [2015] 377 ITR 631 (Guj) 39. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ACIT [2015] 371 ITR 222 (Guj) 43. XEROX MODICORP LTD. Vs DCIT [2013] 350 ITR 308 (Del) 44. ROSE SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3E ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 5 Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6 Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 8 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9 CIT…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…e, the formation of the opinion by the AO that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment was vitiated the reopening of the assessment could not be sustained and deserved to be quashed and set aside.” Now,we would like to refer to Xerox Modicorp Ltd.(350 ITR 308) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.In that matter the following reasons were recorded by the AO for re-opening the case: "The assessment of M/s. Xerox India Ltd. for the AY.2004-05 was completed u/s. 143(3), vide order dated Decem ber 27, 2006, determining an income of Rs.27,39,40,490. 2.The assessee-company had claimed and was allowed an expenditu…

E.I. Dupont Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…the audit party. For this he relied on decision of (a) Honorable Supreme court in Indian And Eastern Newspaper society V CIT 1119 ITR 996 and (b) Honourable Delhi high court in Transworld international Inc. v JCIT 273 ITR 242 and Xerox Modi Corp Ltd V DCIT 350 ITR 308 and (c) Honourable Gujarat high court in Rajratna metal Industries Limited V ACIT and Vodafone West Ltd V ACIT 37 Taxmann.com 158 where audit objection is contested but case is reopened. However, AR of the assessee could not produce any evidence before us that the reopening has been initiated at the behest of audit party. Therefore, in absence o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S E.I. Dupont India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…the audit party. For this he relied on decision of (a) Honorable Supreme court in Indian And Eastern Newspaper society V CIT 1119 ITR 996 and (b) Honourable Delhi high court in Transworld international Inc. v JCIT 273 ITR 242 and Xerox Modi Corp Ltd V DCIT 350 ITR 308 and (c) Honourable Gujarat high court in Rajratna metal Industries Limited V ACIT and Vodafone West Ltd V ACIT 37 Taxmann.com 158 where audit objection is contested but case is reopened. However, AR of the assessee could not produce any evidence before us that the reopening has been initiated at the behest of audit party. Therefore, in absence o…

Dct, New Delhi vs. M/S State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4277/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bibhu Dutt Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…bmitted that the objection raised by audit could not constitute tangible material for reassessment under section 147 / 148 of the Act and in this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs. DCIT - 350 ITR 308. wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under :- "The audit objection was an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit could not constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened. Therefore, the notice within the period of four years from the end of…

Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 308) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax