← All Phrases

“true and full disclosure”

Settlement & AmnestySection 245CSection 245C198 judgments

The decision most relied on for true and full disclosure is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), cited in 439 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on true and full disclosure

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO
41 ITR 191 · 1961 · Supreme Court
384
citing judgments

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

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.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT
308 ITR 195 · 2009 · High Court
175
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment when all material facts were already before the AO during the original assessment, even if the AO failed to apply their mind at that time. Such an action constitutes an impermissible review of a concluded assessment rather than a reassessment based on fresh tangible material.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT
398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court
137
citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

Judgments citing true and full disclosure

The Chanour Co-Operative Aggriculture Service Society Limited, Kangra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - Dharamshala, Dharamshala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 464/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chanour Co-Operative Agriculture Ito - Dharamshala Service Society Ltd. Himachal Pradesh. बनाम/ C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh Vs. #527, Sector-10D Chandigarh – 160011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacat-7465-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-02-2024 Confirming Penalty U/S 270A For Rs.57,715/- As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 14-12-2021 In The Matter Of Quantum Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) On 23-12-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)

under-reporting of income. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, stated that the claims were bona-fide claims. The assessee made true and full disclosure of his income in the return of income and claimed eligible deduction u/s 80P(2). All the particulars of the income were duly

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Deputy Commissioner Limited Vs. Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) [Pan: Aaacd7999Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Ar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/04/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

subsidiaries and interest income accounted by the assessee for the financial year relevant to A.Y.2011-12. The assessee claims that it has made true and full disclosure of necessary facts in the financial statements and therefore, reopening of assessment without any allegation that there is failure on the part ... there is difference, which could not be reconciled by the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, arguments of the assesse that there is true and full disclosure of necessary facts in respect of interest income received from Mexican subsidiary is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted, because the assessee