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.

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha
Section 54F

…. The assessing officer can form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment by examining the very return/documents accompanying the return. Refer Indulata Rangwala vs DCIT (2016) 286 CTR (Del) 474, CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC), DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661(SC). 4.9. When no finding either positive or negative is arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinionrefer ~ A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 81…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…elieve' to mean that the AO must have cause or justification. At the stage of initiation of the proceedings it is not required that the AO must establish the escapement of the income. 25. In Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or, re- assess 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 ca…

ITO Ward - 8(3), New Delhi vs. Escorts Finance Limited, Faridabad

ITA 9122/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Escorts Finance Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 15/5, Mathura Road Tax Faridabad-121 003 Circle 11(1), Pan –Aaace0763B New Delhi Ito Vs. M/S. Escorts Finance Limited Ward-8(3), 15/5, Mathura Road New Delhi Faridabad-121 003 Pan –Aaace0763B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…on precedent is applicable whether the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by intimation or assessed by scrutiny 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 chargeableto 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 7 ITA No. 7977 & 9122/Del./201…

Escorts Finance Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 7977/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Escorts Finance Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 15/5, Mathura Road Tax Faridabad-121 003 Circle 11(1), Pan –Aaace0763B New Delhi Ito Vs. M/S. Escorts Finance Limited Ward-8(3), 15/5, Mathura Road New Delhi Faridabad-121 003 Pan –Aaace0763B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…on precedent is applicable whether the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by intimation or assessed by scrutiny 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 chargeableto 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 7 ITA No. 7977 & 9122/Del./201…

Astral Properties & Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…s prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage”. 7.3.3. In ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC): The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “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…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e of tangible 6 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO 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). It is thus submitted that in the instant case there is no material much less valid material. It is submitted that assumptions which are merely in the nature of suspicion cannot be the foundation for proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is therefore submitted that, reasons recorded are highly vague, indefinite, farfetched, remote and cannot b…

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…ss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; 11. In the present facts of the case assessee falls under situation (b) above. We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500, wherein Hon’ble court Page 13 of 17 held that Section 147 authorises and permits the Ld.AO to assessee or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has “reason to believe” that income for assessment year has escaped assessment. The word ‘reason’ in the phrase, ‘reason to believe’, would mean cause or justification. If the Ld.AO has cause or justi…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…/ 148 of the Act is taken before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the first condition needs to be satisfied, as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In other words, the only condition that is to be satisfied in such cases is that the AG, for whatever reason, should have had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action u/s 147 /148 of the Act is taken after the expiry of four years from the end of…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…/ 148 of the Act is taken before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the first condition needs to be satisfied, as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In other words, the only condition that is to be satisfied in such cases is that the AG, for whatever reason, should have had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action u/s 147 /148 of the Act is taken after the expiry of four years from the end of…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…/ 148 of the Act is taken before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the first condition needs to be satisfied, as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In other words, the only condition that is to be satisfied in such cases is that the AG, for whatever reason, should have had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action u/s 147 /148 of the Act is taken after the expiry of four years from the end of…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…/ 148 of the Act is taken before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the first condition needs to be satisfied, as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In other words, the only condition that is to be satisfied in such cases is that the AG, for whatever reason, should have had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action u/s 147 /148 of the Act is taken after the expiry of four years from the end of…

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…utta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Gruh Finance Ltd. vs. JCIT, 243 ITR 482 (Guj) (iv) Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., 191 ITR 662(SC) (v) Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34(SC) (vi) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker, 291 ITR 500 (SC) 6 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) 6.1 The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that it is not a case of change of opinion, as has been held by the CIT(A). A detailed chart was prepared to reveal the facts behind the returned income, assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act…

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

…utta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Gruh Finance Ltd. vs. JCIT, 243 ITR 482 (Guj) (iv) Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., 191 ITR 662(SC) (v) Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34(SC) (vi) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker, 291 ITR 500 (SC) 6 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) 6.1 The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that it is not a case of change of opinion, as has been held by the CIT(A). A detailed chart was prepared to reveal the facts behind the returned income, assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act…

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…, the assessing officer can form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment by examining the very return/documents accompanying the return. Refer Indulata Rangwala vs DCIT (2016) 286 CTR (Del) 474, CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC), DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development 6s Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661(SC). The assessing officer noted that in the original assessment order, the assessing officer did not notice that "Malad Property" was shown as stock-in-trade at Rs 4,36,77,204/- but no income was offered under "Income from House property". Even when an income liable…

Jt. CIT (OSD)CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Avacado Properties and Trading (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 547/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

…seeking comment of the AO; that such assessment could be framed under section 153A of the Act irrespective of any “incriminating material” and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) (2007), DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Company Ltd. 63 taxmann.com 177 (SC) (2016) and Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar) (2014) 9. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue also filed short synopsis to support his argument which has been made part of the judicial record. However, on the other hand, the L…

Khandesh Builders Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 268/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg & Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…o change of opinion as in the assessment order, there is no express or implied opinion on applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld.CIT(DR) has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC). 13. In the rejoinder submission, the ld.AR of the assessee took us through the entire judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd., (supra) to emphasize the point that in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court after analyzing the facts has mentioned that the notice dated 09.03.2004 issued during the o…

Mamania Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

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

ITA 308/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. M. Alankamony, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 308/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: None byFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. DR by
Section 115WSection 139(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A. M. ALANKAMONY, AM & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 308/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mamania Family Trust, ACIT, Cen. Cir -41, 6th floor, R. No. 656, B-Wing, 13th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ Peninsula Business Park, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAAAM-1339-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : None by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. DR by सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.03.2…

M/S. Jindal Aluminium Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

WP/52269/2017HC Karnataka16 Mar 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

…a relevant test. Relying upon this decision, Sri K.V. Aravind also submits when the two conditions viz., when the assessing officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped 5 (2008) 14 SCC 208 20 assessment and escapement is because the assessee has not fully and truthfully disclosed all the relevant material, the AO will have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the I-T Act. 6.2 Shri K.V. Aravind also emphasizes that the notification dated 06.09.2016 is issued withdrawing the approval granted to M/s…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…s, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; 5.3. In the present facts of the case assessee falls under situation (b) above. We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500, wherein Hon’ble court held that Section 147 authorises and permits the Ld.AO to assessee or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for assessment year has escaped assessment. The word ‘reason’ in the phrase, ‘reason to believe’, would mean cause or justification. If the Ld.AO has cause or justification to know…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…s, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; 5.3. In the present facts of the case assessee falls under situation (b) above. We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500, wherein Hon’ble court held that Section 147 authorises and permits the Ld.AO to assessee or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for assessment year has escaped assessment. The word ‘reason’ in the phrase, ‘reason to believe’, would mean cause or justification. If the Ld.AO has cause or justification to know…