319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava v. ACIT

289 ITR 37High Court2007#5490 most cited

What is 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava v. ACIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The AO must have tangible or fresh material to believe that income has escaped assessment.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Shipra Srivastava v. ACIT · 319 ITR 221 · reassessment · section 147 · section 148 · change of opinion · fresh material · escaped income · assessment order · AO powers

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava v. ACIT

ITO, Chengalput vs. Murugan Arul Enterprises, Chennai

ITA 2631/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. C.P.Ramaswami, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…wered to reopen the assessment irrespective of whether it is made u/s.143(1) or 143(3). The order of reassessment was not valid. The same view was held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Bapalan and Co. Exports vs JCIT (OSD) (2007) 289 ITR 37. Further Section 147 does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. This view was taken by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd Vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 1(Del). The above ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court was…