Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Ltu, Mumbai on 11 January, 2017
8. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd Vs DCIT (supra)
held that the Assessing Officer cannot take recourse to the provision of
section 147 for his own failure to apply his mind to the material which,
according to him, is relevant and which was available on record. Nothing
new had happened. No new material had come on record, no new
information had been received; it was merely a fresh application of mind
by the same Assessing Officer to the same set of facts and the reason that
had been given was that the same material which was available on record
while assessment order was made was inadvertently excluded from
consideration. This amounted to opening of the assessment merely
because there was change of opinion which was impermissible. Therefore,
the reassessment was not justified.
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [220
ITR 561 (SC)], Bombay High Court in Asian Paints vs. DCIT [308 ITR
195], Tribunal in ITO Vs Essential Moto (17 TTR 281 Chd Trib) and
Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd Vs DCIT (150 ITD 709
Mum Tri).
Section 253 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Royal Palms (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 13(3)(1), Mumbai on 22 September, 2017
However, in case of
I.P. Patel (supra) the assessment was reopened by AO on the basis of
information received from external agency i.e., from the office of Jt.
Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the ld.
DR are entirely on different facts. Hence, the Ground No. 2 to 5 of the
appeal is allowed.
Cit vs Kalvinator Of India Ltd. on 19 April, 2002
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Kalvinator of India Ltd (supra) while
explaining the scope of section 147 has laid down the following ration of
law;
Maharashtra Tourism Development ... vs Dcit Rg 3(2), Mumbai on 23 August, 2017
The coordinate bench of Tribunal in
Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (supra) held that
when the assessee furnished various details regarding commencement of
business activity relating to the paid up capitals, expenditure incurred,
7
ITA No.58/M/11- M/s Rusan Pharma Ltd.
services rendered, etc. while responding to the quarries. And it is also
evident from the order that the assessee does not have any fresh or tangible
material which works out as 'livewire' to the assessing officer to form an
opinion or create reason to believe that there is concealment of income. It
was also obvious from the written reasons mentioned by assessing officer
that the basis of reopening is essentially the product of the 'perusal of the
record'.
1