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.

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…g Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.3 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 16 of 107 7.4 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reo…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ing Officer, he himself must form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment before issuing a notice for reopening. In fact the Apex Court has observed in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 has observed that if the Assessing Officer for whatever reasons (material) has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment then jurisdiction is conferred upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment". As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2010]…

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

…20-24 [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA C. Vasantlal and Co.v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3 25-30 [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kachwala Gems v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur 4 31-41 [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 21...[2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 5 42 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Paramount Communications Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 43-48 [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Suman Podd…

Mehul Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1(a) and (b) of the appeal are against reopening of assessment, in absence of any argument , are dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, A Before Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Sandeep Singh Karhailit Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta V. Ito, W-27(1)(1) 27(1)(1) 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment Mumbai 16, Akash, 90 Feet Road Akash, 90 Feet Road Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aghpm8335M Pan No. Shri V. D. Parmar, A.R. Assessee By: Shri Mahita Nair, D.R. Revenue By: 12.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, D.RFor Respondent: 12.10.2023
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…eld the action of the Learned Assessing Officer, holding that there is tangible material that there is no assessment already made and therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 210 CTR 30, confirmed the reopening. With respect to the addition on merits, the Learned CIT-A dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, holding that the Learned Assessing Officer has given a well reasoned finding and therefore, estimation of the gross profit @ 12.5% is proper. 06. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 07. The Learned Au…

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ssment proceedings in the case of the assessee, and on the basis of the aforesaid information, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issued a notice under section 148 of the Act. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd, [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Asses…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…00 to 1000 sq.ft. 11. In the impugned order it has been stated that sufficiency of material is not required to be gone into at that stage. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 is vaguely relied upon. It is further vaguely stated information about the account balance is provided. There is no reason provided as to why the debit and credit transaction had no mention in the recorded reasons nor was there meaningful averment with regard to the nature of transaction. It is pertinent to note that whilst the order has been pas…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…l Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the Revenue on the other hand had relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s case for AY 2009-10 and also the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(2007) 291 ITR 500 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 263 ITR 34, 35 (SC). We find merit in the submission of Ld. DR and hence ground no. 9 and 12 are dismissed. Ground no. 10 and 14 being general grounds requires no separate adjudication. 10. On the merits of the case, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is g…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…l Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the Revenue on the other hand had relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s case for AY 2009-10 and also the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(2007) 291 ITR 500 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 263 ITR 34, 35 (SC). We find merit in the submission of Ld. DR and hence ground no. 9 and 12 are dismissed. Ground no. 10 and 14 being general grounds requires no separate adjudication. 10. On the merits of the case, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is g…

Tej Singh, Mathura vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mathura

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

ITA 8/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

….com 15/210 Taxman 57 (P & H). 3. Vikram Kothari (HUF) Vs. State of U.P., [2011] Taxmann.com 280/200 Taxmann.com 152 (Alld). 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 Taxmann.com, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). I.T.A No. 29/Agra/2015 12 Page 17 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) V. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, [2005] 147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, [1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. ITO [1970] 77 ITR, 661 (MP) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. V. Assistant CIT, [2007] 29…

ITO, Corp Ward -1(1), Chennai vs. R Sundaravelu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 3465/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47

…osed the transaction relating to transfer of Intellectual Property Rights in the form of R&D patent and trademark. No assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed in this case. As held by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) an assessment u/s. 143(1) cannot be regarded as expression of any opinion on the issue of taxability of the appellant in respect of transfer of the Intellectual Property Rights. Therefore, it is held that there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment as the transaction of issue of shares against transfer of Intellectual Prop…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act when the department has accepted the retr…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act when the department has accepted the retr…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act when the department has accepted the retr…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act when the department has accepted the retr…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Thippa Setty (322 ITR 525) (Karn.) In that case the Hon’ble High Court held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted cannot be relied upon to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act when the department has accepted the retr…

M/S Sulaikha Clay Mines, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…a reassessment is initiated beyond 4 years, is applicable only in the case of reopening of a regular assessment. Law in the matter is well-settled, for which the Revenue has relied on the decision in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)and, following it, on Indu Lata Rangwala v. Dy. CIT[2017] 384 ITR 337 (Del), taking stock of the judicial precedents. The Gd. fails. 10. In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on August 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 19…

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…a reassessment is initiated beyond 4 years, is applicable only in the case of reopening of a regular assessment. Law in the matter is well-settled, for which the Revenue has relied on the decision in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)and, following it, on Indu Lata Rangwala v. Dy. CIT[2017] 384 ITR 337 (Del), taking stock of the judicial precedents. The Gd. fails. 10. In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on August 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 19…

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…a reassessment is initiated beyond 4 years, is applicable only in the case of reopening of a regular assessment. Law in the matter is well-settled, for which the Revenue has relied on the decision in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)and, following it, on Indu Lata Rangwala v. Dy. CIT[2017] 384 ITR 337 (Del), taking stock of the judicial precedents. The Gd. fails. 10. In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on August 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 19…

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…a reassessment is initiated beyond 4 years, is applicable only in the case of reopening of a regular assessment. Law in the matter is well-settled, for which the Revenue has relied on the decision in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)and, following it, on Indu Lata Rangwala v. Dy. CIT[2017] 384 ITR 337 (Del), taking stock of the judicial precedents. The Gd. fails. 10. In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on August 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 19…

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…a reassessment is initiated beyond 4 years, is applicable only in the case of reopening of a regular assessment. Law in the matter is well-settled, for which the Revenue has relied on the decision in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)and, following it, on Indu Lata Rangwala v. Dy. CIT[2017] 384 ITR 337 (Del), taking stock of the judicial precedents. The Gd. fails. 10. In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on August 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 19…