A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO

34 ITR 275Supreme Court of India1958#6782 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetsection 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55circle rate

Judgments citing A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO

INDIA MEDRONIC PRIVATE LIMTITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

ITA 7262/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora/Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER India Medtronic Private Limited (Successor to Covidien Healthcare India - Private Limited), 1241, 4th Floor, Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No. 12, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 [PAN: AABCT6021C] …………… Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Range 10(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 209, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rajan Vora/Nikhil Tiwari For the Respondent/Dep…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e Court in Orient Craft Ltd. (supra) then discussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e Court in Orient Craft Ltd. (supra) then discussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e Court in Orient Craft Ltd. (supra) then discussed extensively the meaning and content of the expression 'reasons to believe' under Section 147 of the Act. The Court relied upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that the Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) was a…

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

ITA 857/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal &For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 FedEx Express Transportation and Vs. DCIT, Circle-9(3)(1), Supply Chain Services (India) Private Mumbai. (Respondent) Limited (‘FETSCS’) [Federal Express India Private Limited merged with FETSCS with effect from October 1, 2013] Boomerang, 801, A-wing, Chandivali Farm Road, Nr.Chandivali Studio, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072 PAN : AABCF6516A (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala Respondent by : Ms. Amrita Ranjan & Shr…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5712/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-5712/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) ACIT vs Engineering Projects India Ltd. Circle 8(1), Room No. 194, Core-3, Scope Complex-7, 1st Floor, C.R. Building, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACE0061C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CA Sh. Vinay Sethi, CA ORDER PER SH. H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.07.…

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

…juncture to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression "reason to believe" appearing in section 147. 6. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A. N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), speaking through S. K. Das J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of "definite information". Though this judgment is based on the ph…

P PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 21.11.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ture to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression "reason to believe" appearing in section 147. 6.3 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A. N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), speaking through S. K. Das J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of "definite information". Though this judgment is based on the ph…

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…cture to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression "reason to believe" appearing in section 147. 11. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A. N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), speaking through S. K. Das J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of "definite information". Though this judgment is based on the p…

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furt…

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 352/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furt…

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 26/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furt…

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 25/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furt…

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 24/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furt…

ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. VARSHA PRITAM REWARI, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 897/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer 17(3)(5) Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari Room No. 137, 1St Floor Flat No. 25, Cci Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai 400020 Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadpr9676G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: Shri Dhirendra Shah
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…juncture to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression 'reason to believe" appearing in Section 147. 10. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO (1958) 34 ITR 275, speaking through S.K. Dos, J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre- 1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of "definite information". Though this judgmen…

SMT. CHAYA SINHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh Susan George, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…juncture to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression "reason to believe" appearing in section 147. 12. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A. N. LakshmanShenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC), speaking through S. K. Das J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of "definite information". Though this judgment is based on the phra…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD

ITA/555/2012HC Delhi12 Dec 2012
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 260ASection 28Section 80H

…re to take a brief survey of a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have infused meaning and content to the expression “reason to believe” appearing in Section 147. 10. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO (1958) 34 ITR 275, speaking through S.K. Das, J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment under which the Assessing Officer was empowered to reopen the assessment on the basis of “definite information”. Though this judgment is based on the phra…