5. Rajat Export India Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

341 ITR 135High Court2012#4680 most cited

What is 5. Rajat Export India Pvt Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Reopening an assessment under section 147 requires a prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction upon recording such reason. The presence of fresh tangible material is not a prerequisite for reopening.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajat Export India Pvt Ltd v ITO · section 147 · section 148 · reassessment · income escaped assessment · prima facie reason · reason to believe · jurisdiction to reopen · Assessing Officer · investigation wing · fresh tangible material · 143(1) · 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 1961Section 143(1)Section 151Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 108section 147(b)section 147(a)within four yearsapproval under section 151section 34(1)section 151(1)fresh tangible materialsanctioning authoritylive linkfirst proviso to section 147section 151(2)

Judgments citing 5. Rajat Export India Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ot final verdict but a prima facie reason. Once such a reason is recorded by assessing authority, he assumes jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 - ACIT vs. Tube Investment of Income Ltd. (ITAT Chennai TM) 133 ITD 79; Rajat Export Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135. As regards information for re-opening, it has been held in KalyanjiMavji & Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287, that information may come from external sources or even from material already on record or may be derived from the discovery of new and important matter or fresh fact. Word - "information" would also include true and correct state of law deriv…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Indervadan Jain, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5168/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

…rding to the whims and fancies of the AO. Hence the AO had complied with all the legal requirement of law before reopening the case. 2.6 I would like to rely on the recent Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. vs.lTO 341 ITR 135 (DeL). The Head Note is as under: Reassessment--Reason to believe that income has escaped assessment-Fool proof case for making addition not necessary-- Information received by Assessing Officer from investigation wing giving instrument number, date, name of bank and branch and account number, indicating assessee had taken accommodation entry fro…

ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indravadan Jain HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4861/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

…rding to the whims and fancies of the AO. Hence the AO had complied with all the legal requirement of law before reopening the case. 2.6 I would like to rely on the recent Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. vs.lTO 341 ITR 135 (DeL). The Head Note is as under: Reassessment--Reason to believe that income has escaped assessment-Fool proof case for making addition not necessary-- Information received by Assessing Officer from investigation wing giving instrument number, date, name of bank and branch and account number, indicating assessee had taken accommodation entry fro…

M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2205/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacu1678F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 3

…e assessment and therefore the action under section 148 of the Act was not justified. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), however referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajat Import- Export India Private Limited, 341 ITR 135 (Del) held that at the stage of reopening of the assessment the AO is not required to build a foolproof case for making addition to the assessee’s income and all that is required to do that is to form a prima facie opinion or belief that income has escaped assessment, upheld the action of the AO under section 148 of the Act. On merit of the addit…

Sri C M Mahadeva S/O Sri Manche Gowda vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/795/2009HC Karnataka24 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 255(6)Section 260Section 69

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO. 795/2009 BETWEEN SRI C.M.MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA CHAMALAPURA, KEELARA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR K.S.HANUMANTHA RAO, ADV.,) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSORE.…