2.13. In Jawand Sons. v. CIT(A)

326 ITR 39High Court2010#2939 most cited

What is 2.13. In Jawand Sons. v. CIT(A) authority for?

Following the amendment to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in 1989, the Assessing Officer has broad powers to reopen assessments if they have reason to believe income has escaped assessment, even if the assessee made a full and true disclosure of material facts. This belief can be formed in any manner.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jawand Sons v. CIT · Section 147 · reason to believe · full and true disclosure · reassessment · escaped income · amended Section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)full and true disclosurereason to believeservice of noticeincome-tax officerescapement of incomereopening of assessmentnotice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 143(2)section 148transfer

Judgments citing 2.13. In Jawand Sons. v. CIT(A)

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…tion. In these circumstances, the appellant's contention that there was no application of mind by the AO is also not correct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following case laws: ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 8 Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given to the Assessing Officer even to cover cases where the assessee had fully disclosed the material facts. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped a…

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…tion. In these circumstances, the appellant's contention that there was no application of mind by the AO is also not correct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following case laws: ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 8 Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given to the Assessing Officer even to cover cases where the assessee had fully disclosed the material facts. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped a…

Shrimati Amarjit Kaur W/O Bugar Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

…d from the documents furnished by the assessee that it was not eligible for deduction under section 80-1 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, deduction of Rs. 2,59,42,908 was wrongly allowed at the time of assessment under section 143(3). f) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given to the Assessing Officer even to cover cases where the assessee had fully disclosed the material facts. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped…

M/S Blue City Township & Colonizers, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

…of decided cases of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited.291 ITR 500 SC, A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Limited. Vs ITO 236 ITR 34 SC, Gurera Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 258 ITR 170 P&H, Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H, Sewak Ram Vs ITO 236 CTR 462 (P&H), Aditya and Co. Vs CIT 279 ITR 47 P&H, Tilak Raj Bedi Vs. JCIT 319 ITR 385 P&H, Pb. State Cooperative Agriculture Dev Bank Vs. CIT 207 CTR 352 P&H, Grover Nursing Home 248 ITR 493 P&H, Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 Del the principle is laid down that the Assessing Officer is exp…

Hetram Bokan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1688/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Hetram Bokan, Vs Ito, 226, 2Nd Floor, Jmd Megapolis, Ward-2(1), Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Amkpb3430B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2023

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 234A

…ly discussed the ground related to validity of assessment and following the judgements of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Grover Nursing Home 248 ITR 493 P&H; Gurera Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 258 ITR 170 P & H; Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H; Sewak Ram Vs ITO 236 CTR 462 (P&H); and Arun Kuamr Goyal v CIT (2013) 81 DTR 123 (P&H) wherein Court rejected the plea of the assessee on the basis that assessment was not validly re-opened. 3 | P a g e 8. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:-…

Shri Baljinder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 148/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

…stage, the court can neither go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given to the Assessing Officer even to cover cases where the assessee had fully disclosed the material facts. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that…

Shrimati Manjit Kaur, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 147/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

…stage, the court can neither go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given to the Assessing Officer even to cover cases where the assessee had fully disclosed the material facts. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that…

Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2013 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Vodafone Idea Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Successor To Aditya Birla Telecom Income Tax Limited) Aayaker Bhavan, M.K. Road, बिाम/ 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2100P अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr.Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, SR.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the appellant has not offered interest income of Rs.2,46,70,808/- to tax. Therefore, there is no illegality in the reopening of the assessment. Strong reliance Vodafone Idea Limited ; AY 07-08 is placed on the decision in the case of Jawand Sons Vs CIT (2010) 326 ITR 39 (PH). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woo//en Mills Ltd Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) has held that in determining whether the commencement of proceedings under section 147(a) was valid, what was to be seen was only the prima fade material: the sufficiency or the correctness of the material was not a thing to be considered at that…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 2.14. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P &…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…llegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 5.11. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sel…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…llegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 5.11. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sel…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…llegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 5.11. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sel…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 2.13. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd.…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 2.13. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 2.13. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 2.13. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…llegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 4.12. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P &…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 4.12. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P &…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 4.12. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P &…

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…n the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the 21 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 3.14. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P &…