← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Praveen Shaileena, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 72/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Parveen Shaileena Behind Ankur Hospital, Hanuman Mandir, Jail Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7678N

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

mind by the ld. CIT while granting the approval u/s.151(1); in absence of a valid approval u/s.151(1) as mandated by law; reopening of assessment u/s.147/148 would be invalid, bad in law and hence, is liable to be quashed." As the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Satya Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3024/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

counter affidavit do not in any way explain the patent illegality in invoking the powers under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment of the Assessee for AY 2007-08. The mere fact that the definition of an Assessing Officer in terms of Section ... question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148. However, in the instant case, the assessee had enclosed the copy of return filed with the Assessing Officer of Delhi with

Rati Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3023/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

counter affidavit do not in any way explain the patent illegality in invoking the powers under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment of the Assessee for AY 2007-08. The mere fact that the definition of an Assessing Officer in terms of Section ... question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148. However, in the instant case, the assessee had enclosed the copy of return filed with the Assessing Officer of Delhi with

Satyabir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

counter affidavit do not in any way explain the patent illegality in invoking the powers under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment of the Assessee for AY 2007-08. The mere fact that the definition of an Assessing Officer in terms of Section ... question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148. However, in the instant case, the assessee had enclosed the copy of return filed with the Assessing Officer of Delhi with

Crown Seals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1319/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Crown Seals Pvt. Ltd., V. Ito – Ward – 6(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G-6-A, Laxmi Wollen Mill Estate Mumbai - 400020 Shakti Lane, Dr. E. Moses Road Mahalxmi, Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaccc8602K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2023 for the A.Y.2011-12. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “I. Reopening of Assessment; 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the order ... reopening the assessment vide notice u/s 148 dated 28/03/2018 which is be beyond the period of four year merely on information received from DGIT(INV) Mumbai and sales tax department without considering the fact that there was no tangible material on basis of which a assessment can be reopened, further

Yogesh Goyal, Dhamtari vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations hereinabove,

ITA 57/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

trading in shares of M/s DLS Exports Pvt. Ltd., which were duly responded by the ld. AO. Before the ld. AO during the reopening of assessment proceedings, the assessee has also submitted that he had purchased 450 shares of Sarathi Dealers Pvt. Ltd., which was later on amalgamated with

Shri Harbans Singh Mann, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the ground no

ITA 129/ASR/2022[2010-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2010-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250oSection 69A

that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes” and ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneshwar

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargagroha Fincap Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-51, Mahendru Enclave Gt Ward-1(4), Karnal Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca8075G

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

duly applied his mind and has made a thorough analysis of the documents and after analyzing the documents has recorded his satisfaction and reopened the assessment. The ld. Addl. CIT had perused the note and had recorded his satisfaction that income pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment ... book, shows that the Addl. CIT. while giving approval has simply mentioned: "Yes. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening of assessment u/s 148." Similarly, the PCIT, while giving approval has also simply mentioned: "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue

Ajay Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2500/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargajay Singh, Vs. Ito,] C/O. Advocate Kanika Jain, D- Ward-1(1), 80, Lgf, Panchsheel Enclave, Noida New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aoops4561G

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

fact it had been. Their lordship further held that such situation no error was committed by the Tribunal in holding that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 8. Respectfully following the above proposition of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Hon’ble Court of Delhi (supra) I am inclined to hold

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

point. The question is of application of mind by the AO to the material available with him before deciding to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 10. In this context the following observations of this Court in CIT v. Suren International ... No.692/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons

Madan Mohan Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7041/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Madan Mohan TiwariFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 148

will now address to each appeal. ITA No. 7041 & 7042/DEL/2018 [A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11] 6. First challenge is in respect of reopening of assessment. 7. The assessee strongly contended that the Assessing Officer had no reason to issue notice ... also directed to give credit of TDS as per Form 26AS. ITA No. 7043/DEL/2018 [ A.Y 2011-12] 17. First challenge is regarding reopening of assessment. 18. The reason for reopening assessment is that on examination of Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has total receipt

Shri Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 63/RPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

which is unjustified, is liable to be deleted. Additional Gr.No.l: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s148 & assessment made u/s.147, both are invalid & without having valid jurisdiction by the Id AOs i.e., DCIT-l(l)/ ACIT- 3(1), as they were ... contravention thereto reopening u/s.148/147 of the Act by the AO, who had not possessed valid jurisdiction over the assessee while proceeding for reopening of assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act, which is liable to be quashed. Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 issued by the CBDT reads as under :- INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011

Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.259/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor Income Tax Officer, 6, Shiv Jal, Shailesh Park Ward-5, Navsari, Room Vs Society, Gandevi Road, Navsari- No.204, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 396445 Bhawan, Near Char Pool, Pan : Adept 7623 H Police Choki, Navsari- 396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 249(2)Section 254(1)Section 54B

note of delay. (II) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant puts forth the grounds placed before the CIT(A) for consideration. (1) Reopening of Assessment: The Assessing Officer erred in reopening of assessment as the reasons given for reopening do not show correct facts. (2) Addition of Capital Gain

Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Jitendra Singh.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Abhishek Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

dated 2 Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai 25.01.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the same may be quashed. 2. Reopening of assessment is bad in law i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in issuing the notice dated ... reopen the assessment of the Appellant completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2015 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act is bad in law and the same may be. quashed

Agasthya Auto Products LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 38(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargagasthya Auto Products Llp, Vs. Ito, 15, Godavari Apartments, Ward-38(1), Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abbfa9335N

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdcFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

words used by the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening clearly shows that the AO proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings and reopening of assessment without having any valid satisfaction and only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of independent application of mind to the material received ... dismissed. 6. The ld counsel further pressing into service ground No. 5 of assessee submitted that the AO has erred in initiating the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act without obtaining valid approval from the competent authority as per mandatory requirement u/s 151 of the Act therefore

Shri Rama Mepa Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

that there had been escapement of income of assessee from assessment because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening of assessment was justified, SLP against said impugned order was liable to be dismissed. I.T.A No. 69/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Shri Rama Mepa ... believe", however, is not defined in the Act but it can be gathered and available from the information, leading the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The term itself is suggestive of its prima-facie characteristics and not established or conclusive facts or information. Meaning thereby, it is the Assessing

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1) - Bhopal (Ld. AO) is erroneous and bad in law. 2. Reopening of Assessment On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action ... reopening the assessment proceedings on the basis of documents and information which were already available with the AO at the time of completion of original assessment. The appellant humbly prays that the reassessment proceedings being without jurisdiction and bad in law, should be quashed. 3. Deemed Dividend On the facts

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

ITAT, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer in the interim issued notice dated 31.03.2019 u/s. 148 of the Act and provided reasons for reopening the assessment on 30.04. 2019. The relevant extract of reasons provided by the Assessing Officer is reproduced below: - “In the instant case under consideration, the expenses claimed ... issue has came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT upheld the action of the AO of reopening the assessment proceedings stating that "though the assessee claims to have furnished necessary details before the AO at the time of original assessment, the records clearly

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

ITAT, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer in the interim issued notice dated 31.03.2019 u/s. 148 of the Act and provided reasons for reopening the assessment on 30.04. 2019. The relevant extract of reasons provided by the Assessing Officer is reproduced below: - “In the instant case under consideration, the expenses claimed ... issue has came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT upheld the action of the AO of reopening the assessment proceedings stating that "though the assessee claims to have furnished necessary details before the AO at the time of original assessment, the records clearly

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

ITAT, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer in the interim issued notice dated 31.03.2019 u/s. 148 of the Act and provided reasons for reopening the assessment on 30.04. 2019. The relevant extract of reasons provided by the Assessing Officer is reproduced below: - “In the instant case under consideration, the expenses claimed ... issue has came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT upheld the action of the AO of reopening the assessment proceedings stating that "though the assessee claims to have furnished necessary details before the AO at the time of original assessment, the records clearly