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.

How many judgments cite ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.?

1,030 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 143(1), Section 142(1), Section 68.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500)

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…ing the return. Refer Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 286 CT (Del) 474, CIT vs. Rajesh Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 286 CT (Del) 474, CIT vs. Rajesh Indulata Rangwala vs. DCIT (2016) 286 CT (Del) 474, CIT vs. Rajesh Shaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) Shaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), DCIT vs. Zuari , DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 IT 661 (SC). Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 IT 661 (SC). Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 IT 661 (SC). 4.7. When no finding either positive or negative is arrived…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

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

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

…elhi Television Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2020] 116 taxmann.com 151 (SC) and in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Page 4 of 23 I.T.A. No.: 275/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Arihant International Limited. (P.) Ltd. reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France reported in [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) which was subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Kelvinator of Ind…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6377/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1334/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1333/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1331/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1330/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. 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…

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7952/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ash has been deposited by the assessee but AO also had the information regarding the other transactions of the assessee, which in the absence of any return of income, were not disclosed by the assessee. 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…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. This would also render the decision in Vedvan Consultants (P.) Ltd. (in ITA No. 1312/De…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. This would also render the decision in Vedvan Consultants (P.) Ltd. (in ITA No. 1312/De…

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. A O Circle2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 14/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. This would also render the decision in Vedvan Consultants (P.) Ltd. (in ITA No. 1312/De…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…r the facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. We are conscious of the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in B.S. Patel…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…r the facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. We are conscious of the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in B.S. Patel…

Jabalpur Motors Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 22/JAB/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. As regards the aspect of the retrospective nature of the Explanations under reference,…

ITO Ward - 10(4), New Delhi vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5143/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcs7132B

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…cumstances which establish that Sh. Tarun Goyal was operating bogus entries firms. He submitted same circumstances are in present case. 8.2 The ld DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd 291 ITR 500 to contend that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. The expression cannot be read to mean that ITO Vs Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. 8.3 He submitted that Mr. Tarun Goyal was a bogus entry operator who had made an admis…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…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.…

Mukesh Kumer Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. As regards the aspect of the retrospective nature of the Explanations under reference,…

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT- Circle 1(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 53/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…he facts stated therein. Why, the processing of a return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) is not an ‘assessment’ inasmuch as there is no provision for hearing the assessee, precluding debatable issues (see: CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)). The only circumstance, therefore, justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. As regards the aspect of the retrospective nature of the Explanations under reference,…

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. A O Circle2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

Jabalpur Motors Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore., Bangalore

ITO Ward - 10(4), New Delhi vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

Mukesh Kumer Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Jabalpur

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT- Circle 1(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur