← All Phrases

“initial assessment year”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA311 judgments

The decision most relied on for initial assessment year is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on initial assessment year

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 172 · 2014 · High Court
331
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A are initiated only if assessment/reassessment proceedings are pending on the date of search/requisition. Already finalized assessments for the years covered under Section 153A do not abate.

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court
282
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO
130 ITR 1 · 1981 · Supreme Court
234
citing judgments

A mere charge of bogus expenses, without a specific finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, is insufficient to justify reassessment beyond four years under the first proviso to Section 147. Courts can examine the materiality and relevance of facts forming the 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment, ensuring it is based on reasonable grounds.

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

Indian National Congress v. DCIT
463 ITR 431 · 2024 · High Court
167
citing judgments

A consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years is valid for initiating proceedings under section 153C, provided the seized material and the additions rest on incriminating evidence pertaining to those years.

Judgments citing initial assessment year

Shanti Hospital, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Bijapur

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

ITA 21/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.18 To 21/Pan/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Shanti Hospital, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Tp No.166/A/1A, Ward Belagavi. No.10, Extension Area 587101, Karnataka- 587101. Pan : Ablfs7115E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By : Shri Sridhar Dora Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.12.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.18/Pan/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

fact that the space of building was not used for the purpose of earmarked for parking purposes. He further submitted that in the initial assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, the Assessing Officer himself had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11C) in the assessment made

Shanti Hospital, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belgaum

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

ITA 20/PAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.18 To 21/Pan/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Shanti Hospital, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Tp No.166/A/1A, Ward Belagavi. No.10, Extension Area 587101, Karnataka- 587101. Pan : Ablfs7115E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By : Shri Sridhar Dora Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.12.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.18/Pan/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

fact that the space of building was not used for the purpose of earmarked for parking purposes. He further submitted that in the initial assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, the Assessing Officer himself had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11C) in the assessment made

Shanti Hospital, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belgaum

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

ITA 19/PAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.18 To 21/Pan/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Shanti Hospital, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Tp No.166/A/1A, Ward Belagavi. No.10, Extension Area 587101, Karnataka- 587101. Pan : Ablfs7115E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By : Shri Sridhar Dora Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.12.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.18/Pan/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

fact that the space of building was not used for the purpose of earmarked for parking purposes. He further submitted that in the initial assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, the Assessing Officer himself had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11C) in the assessment made

Shanti Hospital, Belgaum vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belgaum

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

ITA 18/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.18 To 21/Pan/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Shanti Hospital, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Tp No.166/A/1A, Ward Belagavi. No.10, Extension Area 587101, Karnataka- 587101. Pan : Ablfs7115E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By : Shri Sridhar Dora Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.12.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.18/Pan/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

fact that the space of building was not used for the purpose of earmarked for parking purposes. He further submitted that in the initial assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, the Assessing Officer himself had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11C) in the assessment made

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2032/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

which the production is started is taken as initial previous year whereas, after the amendment in provisions of section 80lA w.e.f. 01.04.2000 the initial assessment year is at the option of the assessee to avail the benefit. 88. In view of the amended provisions of Section 80-IA, the year ... which the claim is first made i.e. initial assessment year, must apply for determination of eligibility of the claim. In respect of AY. 2004-05 onwards including assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, since the condition relating to transfer of such facility to Central Govt. was no longer

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2031/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

which the production is started is taken as initial previous year whereas, after the amendment in provisions of section 80lA w.e.f. 01.04.2000 the initial assessment year is at the option of the assessee to avail the benefit. 88. In view of the amended provisions of Section 80-IA, the year ... which the claim is first made i.e. initial assessment year, must apply for determination of eligibility of the claim. In respect of AY. 2004-05 onwards including assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, since the condition relating to transfer of such facility to Central Govt. was no longer