ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500Supreme Court of India2007#41 most cited

What is ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

1,030

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. · Rajesh Jhaveri · 291 ITR 500 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · prima facie material · tangible material · validity of reopening · initiation of reassessment · sufficiency of material

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 133ASection 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)fresh tangible materiallive linkmaterial facts necessary for assessmentmere change of opinionkelvinatortangible materialchange of opinionreason to believeescapement of incomeborrowed satisfactionincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…(P.) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 5. Chetan Sabharwal vs. ACIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) 16 CO No.21/PUN/2024 6. Subhodh Agarwal v. State of U.P. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 448 (Allahabad) 7. ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) 8. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) 9. DCIT v. M.R. Shah Logistics (P.) Ltd. (2022) 136 taxmann.com 373 (SC) 10. Munjal M Jaykrishna Family Trust v. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 38 (Gujarat) 17. He however submitted that although the assessee has taken grounds challenging the validity of reopening the assessment, howev…

Pragati Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1106/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d a property for a consideration of Rs. 5,37,47,200/-. After recording the reasons properly and getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessment was reopened. The Ld. AO has relied on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) for the proposition that prima facie belief of escapement of income is enough to reopen the assessment and proceeded. 4. Notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for information as to why no Return of Income was filed etc. In response to this, the assessee firm has filed a letter stating that Return of Income for A.Y.…

Joint Commossioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 19/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…s recorded for reopening fall in the category of change of opinion on the part of the AO.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri [2006] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. CIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) has quashed the assessment order holding the reopening as change of opinion. The Revenue is in appeal against the quashing of assessment on the ground that the issue considered as reopening were not scrutinized by the A.O and therefore, there was no change of opinion. :- 4 -: 5…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…s recorded for reopening fall in the category of change of opinion on the part of the AO.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri [2006] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. CIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) has quashed the assessment order holding the reopening as change of opinion. The Revenue is in appeal against the quashing of assessment on the ground that the issues considered as reopening were not scrutinized by the A.O and therefore, there was no change of opinion. :- 4 -:…

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the…

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the…

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

…inion. This view of mine also finds support of the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Innovative Foods Ltd. 409 ITR 415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief". 5.8. Guidance is also drawn from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of DCIT vs MR Shah Logistics P Ltd (arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22921/2019 dated 28.03.2…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…415. 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of As 5.7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ehalf of the revenue, namely, Income-tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd: 217 ITR 597, Raymond Woolen Mills Limited v. Income-tax Officer and Others: 236 ITR 34 and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd: 291 ITR 500 do not say anything different. In Dalurband Coal Co. (supra), the Supreme Court observed that at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the said Act, "the only question is whether there was relevant material, as stated above, on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief". Again, in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd (su…

Uma Maheswara Rao Bodapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 292/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Adv. T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara Rao Bodapati आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member and Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ATNPB5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/20…

Sumeet Subhash Narang, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 818/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.818/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Sumeet Subhash Narang Flat No. 413 & 414, 13th/14th Floor, Samudra Mahal, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 PAN: AAIPN7631G (Appellant) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 42(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400051. (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri Balaji V., A.R. Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SR. D.R. 30.05.2024 26.06. 2024 ORDER Per:…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…43(1) IS HELD NOT TO BE ASSESSMENT AS IT IS ONLY "AN INTIMATION". In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007 291 ITR 500, (2007). The relevant Para 13 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the re…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…43(1) IS HELD NOT TO BE ASSESSMENT AS IT IS ONLY "AN INTIMATION". In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007 291 ITR 500, (2007). The relevant Para 13 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the re…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…43(1) IS HELD NOT TO BE ASSESSMENT AS IT IS ONLY "AN INTIMATION". In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007 291 ITR 500, (2007). The relevant Para 13 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the re…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…43(1) IS HELD NOT TO BE ASSESSMENT AS IT IS ONLY "AN INTIMATION". In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007 291 ITR 500, (2007). The relevant Para 13 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the re…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…43(1) IS HELD NOT TO BE ASSESSMENT AS IT IS ONLY "AN INTIMATION". In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007 291 ITR 500, (2007). The relevant Para 13 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the re…

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO (E), Ward-1, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 59/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…tailed investigation or legal analysis. In other words, at the point of time o initiating the reassessment proceedings existence, and not adequacy of reasons, is material. This view is supported by the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), CARTIER SHIPPING CO. LTD. 40 DTR 459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Pute 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording o prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjarangla 203 ITR 456 (SC), K. R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In…

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…ailed investigation or legal analysis. In other words, at the point of time of initiating the reassessment proceedings existence, and not adequacy of reasons, is material. This view is supported by the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), CARTIER SHIPPING CO. LTD. 40 DTR 459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Putel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K. R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC).…