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.

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t the stage of initiation of proceedings for reassessment is for the AO to form a reasonable belief on tangible material that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.: 291 ITR 502, the Supreme Court has explained the above in the following words: - “Section 147 authorizes 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.…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…t the stage of initiation of proceedings for reassessment is for the AO to form a reasonable belief on tangible material that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.: 291 ITR 502, the Supreme Court has explained the above in the following words: - “Section 147 authorizes 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.…

Mr Gajanan Parshuram Khismatrao, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan

ITA 817/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

…y and since the assessee has not filed any return of income, therefore, no income under the head „capital gains‟ has been offered for taxation, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 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…

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद"यएवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of H.No. 6-23-6/C, Jaya Towers, Income Tax, 5/4, Arundelpet, Circle-1(1), Guntur – 522 002. Guntur. PAN: AEOPM 8522 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क…

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद"यएवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of H.No. 6-23-6/C, Jaya Towers, Income Tax, 5/4, Arundelpet, Circle-1(1), Guntur – 522 002. Guntur. PAN: AEOPM 8522 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क…

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद"यएवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of H.No. 6-23-6/C, Jaya Towers, Income Tax, 5/4, Arundelpet, Circle-1(1), Guntur – 522 002. Guntur. PAN: AEOPM 8522 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क…

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद"यएवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of H.No. 6-23-6/C, Jaya Towers, Income Tax, 5/4, Arundelpet, Circle-1(1), Guntur – 522 002. Guntur. PAN: AEOPM 8522 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…can be issued after the expire of four years from the end of the assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment. i. ACITv.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.) Ltd.[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) ii. CITv.Foramer Finance (264 ITR 566) (SC) iii. Prashant Joshi vs. ITO (189 taxman 1) iv. RPG Transmission (359 ITR 673) (Mad HC) v.Kotarki Constructions(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT(89 taxmann.com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii.…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…can be issued after the expire of four years from the end of the assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment. i. ACITv.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.) Ltd.[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) ii. CITv.Foramer Finance (264 ITR 566) (SC) iii. Prashant Joshi vs. ITO (189 taxman 1) iv. RPG Transmission (359 ITR 673) (Mad HC) v.Kotarki Constructions(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT(89 taxmann.com 265)(Kar.HC) vi. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs. ITO (332 ITR 226) (Bom.) vii.CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft(P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 386 (Karn.HC) viii.…

Globus Power Generation Ltd (Formely Known As Cumulative Investments & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6438/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshglobus Power Generation Ltd Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Cumulative Circle-6(2), Investments & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg6734E

For Appellant: Sh. Ritesh Bajaj, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case of reason to suspect' and not „reason to believe.” 6.2 I further note that the acti…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes 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 assessing officer has cause…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes 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 assessing officer has cause…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes 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 assessing officer has cause…

Capt. Manohar Bhola, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 68

…ed as an assessment order. There are plethora of judicial precedents propounding the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, I do not want to discuss in detail all these decisions. Suffice to say, in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid ratio. Thus, the contention of learned Authorized Representative, that the revised return of income filed after completion of assessment under Section 143(1) is to be treated as non est, is unacceptable. 10. Considering the fact that the revised return of income was filed within the time…

M/S. Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 608/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n or assessed by scrutiny 6 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. under Section 143(3) of the Act. [See Asst Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (SC) 291 ITR 500 and PCIT v/s. M/s. Shodimen Investments (Bombay) 2018 (93) Taxman.Com 153]. Further, the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment must be on correct facts. If the facts, as recorded in the reasons are not correct and the assessee points out the same in its objections, then the order on objection must deal with it an…

M/S. Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 607/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n or assessed by scrutiny 6 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. under Section 143(3) of the Act. [See Asst Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (SC) 291 ITR 500 and PCIT v/s. M/s. Shodimen Investments (Bombay) 2018 (93) Taxman.Com 153]. Further, the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment must be on correct facts. If the facts, as recorded in the reasons are not correct and the assessee points out the same in its objections, then the order on objection must deal with it an…

M/S. Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 606/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n or assessed by scrutiny 6 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. under Section 143(3) of the Act. [See Asst Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (SC) 291 ITR 500 and PCIT v/s. M/s. Shodimen Investments (Bombay) 2018 (93) Taxman.Com 153]. Further, the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment must be on correct facts. If the facts, as recorded in the reasons are not correct and the assessee points out the same in its objections, then the order on objection must deal with it an…

Deepak Jain, C-Scheme vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 196/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke Sh. Deepak Jain ITO D-47, Chomu House C-Scheme Vs. Ward 2(1), Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPJ 7359 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha…

Jerry Nirmal Francis, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 846/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jerry Nirmal Francis, Assistant Director Of Income 41A, Balaji Nagar, Off V. Tax, Moogambigai Nagar, 1St Main Centralized Processing Centre, Road, Noombal, Bengaluru. Chennai – 600 077. [Pan: Aaipf-7614-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…d. CIT(A) is contrary to the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of City Manager Association VS DCIT, CPC Bangaluru, (ITA No.1345/Ahd/2019) as well as to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT VS., Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500 and accordingly, the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer be directed to allow the FTC of Rs. 36,25,781. Ground No.4: Proceedings under Section 143(1) of the Act are invalid in law On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held the entire 143(1) proceedings as invalid in law as the Ld. AO had not followe…

Smt Mayuri A Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, quash the reassessment proceedings and set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 1.1 of the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 7591/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…belief that income had escaped due to such client code modification and thus there is no live link between the material before the Assessing Officer and inference made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 has held that for validity of reason recorded it is essential that there should be a relevant material on which a reasonable person could make requisite belief. In the circumstances, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) and decisions of the Tribunal (supra), we…