← All Phrases

“regular assessment”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(40) / Section 143(3) / Section 1442,899 judgments

The decision most relied on for regular assessment is CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645), cited in 1,823 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on regular assessment

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT
49 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
283
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not confined solely to incriminating material found during a search, and the Assessing Officer can assess total income for the relevant 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. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.
83 Taxmann.com 161 · 2017 · High Court
172
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A or 153C, additions cannot be sustained if the material or transactions relied upon do not relate or pertain to the assessee. Regular books of accounts not unearthed during search do not constitute incriminating material to justify additions.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
23 Taxmann.com 103 · 2012 · High Court
162
citing judgments

Additions cannot be made under Section 153A for assessment years where original assessments have become final, unless incriminating material relevant to those years is unearthed during the search operation under Section 132.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

Judgments citing regular assessment

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 555/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition on all those issue which were already considered in regular assessment proceedings. The assessee assailed the additions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions. Thereafter, the Department carried the issue in appeal ... NO.158, 159, 160, 161 & 162/MUM/2021 that the additions assailed by the Department in appeal were earlier deleted by the Tribunal in regular assessment proceedings and the order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. 4.1 In so far as the legal ground raised by the assessee

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition on all those issue which were already considered in regular assessment proceedings. The assessee assailed the additions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions. Thereafter, the Department carried the issue in appeal ... NO.158, 159, 160, 161 & 162/MUM/2021 that the additions assailed by the Department in appeal were earlier deleted by the Tribunal in regular assessment proceedings and the order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. 4.1 In so far as the legal ground raised by the assessee

Dy CIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd., (in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Loquidator)

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 313/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition on all those issue which were already considered in regular assessment proceedings. The assessee assailed the additions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions. Thereafter, the Department carried the issue in appeal ... NO.158, 159, 160, 161 & 162/MUM/2021 that the additions assailed by the Department in appeal were earlier deleted by the Tribunal in regular assessment proceedings and the order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. 4.1 In so far as the legal ground raised by the assessee

ITO Ward - 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Genmal Jaswantlal Choudhary, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition on all those issue which were already considered in regular assessment proceedings. The assessee assailed the additions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions. Thereafter, the Department carried the issue in appeal ... NO.158, 159, 160, 161 & 162/MUM/2021 that the additions assailed by the Department in appeal were earlier deleted by the Tribunal in regular assessment proceedings and the order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. 4.1 In so far as the legal ground raised by the assessee

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

repayment of loan by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business has been doubted in the regular assessment. There is nothing on record to suggest that the amounts advanced by Investment Trust of India to the assessee represented the unaccounted money ... repayment of loan by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business has been doubted in the regular assessment. Admittedly, the transactions by way of journal entries are aimed at the extinguishment of the mutual liabilities between the assessees and the sister concerns

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

income escaping assessment is an exception to the finality of the proceedings arrived at under Section 143(3) of the Act during the regular assessment proceedings of the assessment years. Further, it has been held that if such harassment to a citizen is allowed, then, the conclusiveness of the regular