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 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 366,470 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 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 133A Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)fresh tangible material live link material facts necessary for assessment mere change of opinion kelvinator tangible material change of opinion reason to believe escapement of income borrowed satisfaction income escaping assessment

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

Jap Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7228/MUM/2025[2010 - 11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjap Overseas Private Vs. Ito Ward, 10(2)(1) Limited Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhawan, B-102, Twinkle Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Apartments, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1573C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…grounds as well as on the grounds on merit. For validity of re-opening he has relied on a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts including the decisions in cases of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P.) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC) Vs. ACIT, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO(1993)203 ITR 456 Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO(1993) 236 ITR 34 (SC) etc., which are at para 5.4 to 5.22 of the appellate order. He has also confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.53,88,134/- and addition of commission expenses of Rs.1,07,763/-. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed…

Sunil Kumar, Alwar Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3, Rewari

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 7634/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court in the matter of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2008] 170 Taxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) and in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 He further submits that since on the relevant date of passing of intimation order, the issue being highly debatable, the Assessing Officer ought not to have resorted to the provision under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, which was completely unsustainable and bad in law and the same was neither considered by the CIT (Appeals) nor the ITAT. H…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…sfaction as held in ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996]217 ITR 597 (SC)., (Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147)(SC) & Bhagwan Industrial P.Ltd 31STC 293 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that “reason to believe” does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the re-opening of an assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34, 35 (SC) held that for determining whether initiation…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5601/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5599/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…isfaction as held in ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996]217 ITR 597 (SC).,(Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147)(SC) & Bhagwan Industrial P.Ltd 31STC 293 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that “reason to believe” does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the re-opening of an assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34, 35 (SC) held that for determining whether initiation…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5586/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5584/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263Section 44A

Kumar Gaurav Sharma, Currently Employed in Usa vs. Assessing Officer, Pune

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

ITA 598/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

…No.1345/Abd/2019): Order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Paris Elysees India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 357/PR/2022: Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Lad (2007) 291 ITR 500. It is, therefore, prayed that the Lat. JAU be directed to allow FTC of Rs.857,902 Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in lave, the Ltd. ADDL/ICIT(A) ought to have held the entire 143(1) proceedings as invalid in law as the Li. AO had not followed the provisos to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of giving opportunity to the A…

Imran Ahmad, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Moradabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3490/DEL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 139Section 147Section 148

…y in this case the AO was having tangible material to draw such inference. Reliance is hereby placed upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofRAYMOND WOLLEN MILLS LTD. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC) and ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC), PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO &ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.). It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. PurshotamDassBangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) that th…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Nivedan Fin-Invest Lease Ltd., Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1713/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…the basis of which the Department could reopen the case The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage Relying on this decision, the Apex Court, in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), while considering the issuance of notice under section 147 of the Act has held that the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant and at the initial stage, what is required to be seen is reason to believe but not established fact of escapement of income. It further held that at the stage of issue of notice, the only question is wheth…

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

…Supreme Court in bservation of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500/[2008] 14 SCC [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500/[2008] 14 SCC [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500/[2008] 14 SCC 208 which reads as follows: which reads as follows: "At the stage of issue of notice, the only que "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether stion is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person th…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay

Section 132(4)Section 147

…e Apex Court in ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC)and in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that "reason to believe" does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the re- opening of an assessment. The relevant excerpts of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- "29. In Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 1…

Lekhraj Jasraj Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4937/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay &

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private limited 291 ITR 500 (SC), held that at the Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private limited 291 ITR 500 (SC), held that at the Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private limited 291 ITR 500 (SC), held that at the stage of issue of notice, the question is whether there was relevant stage of issue of notice, the question is whether there was relevant stage of issue of notice, the question is…

Samir Patodia (HUF), Fadia Building, Ramwadi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarsamir Patodia (Huf), V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Fadia Building No. 3, Caval बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Cross Lane 4 Ramwaldi, 7(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhs8769K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…entities controlled and managed by one Sri Gopal Bhattar. Thus, the reopening was based on tangible material. Placing reliance on various P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2018-19 Samir Patodia(HUF) court decision and more specifically on Rajesh Jhaveri Share Brokers P.Ltd 291 ITR 500(SC),Raymond Woolen Mills 236 ITR 34-35(SC), Nikunj Exim Exports P.Ltd 48 Taxman 20(Bom), he concluded that there was no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings, and dismissed the ground in this regard. 4.1 As stated earlier, we find that of Sri Gopal Bhattar in his statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act, accepted that this company was not doing…

Sunil Patodia (HUF), Ramwaldi, Kalbadevi Rd. Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…n entry in the form of bogus purchase from the entities controlled and managed by one Sri Gopal Bhattar. Thus, the reopening was based on tangible material. Placing reliance on various court decision and more specifically on Rajesh Jhaveri Share Brokers P.Ltd 291 ITR 500(SC), Raymond Woolen Mills 236 ITR 34-35(SC), Page | 3 ITA No. 5732/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Sunil Patodia(HUF) Nikunj Exim Exports P.Ltd 48 Taxman 20(Bom), he concluded that there was no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings, and dismissed the ground in this regard. 4.1 As stated earlier, we find that of Sri Gopal Bhattar in his statement record…

Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…formed a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. had formed a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. Reliance was placed upon placed upon ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)] [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)] and submitted that there was a nd submitted that there was a material relevant to the case of the assessee and on that basis he material relevant to the case of the assessee and on that basis he material relevant to the case of the assessee and on that basis he has formed a requisite belief, and therefore, the reas…

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

…the loan transaction. 4.3 The AO treated Rs. 15,47,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 due to the appellant's failure to explain the source of funds adequately. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)] held that the AO is empowered to reopen an assessment if there is tangible material to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. In the present case, the AO had tangible material regarding the purchase of immovable property, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The appellant was provided multiple opportunities to present evid…

Divesh Verma, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5961/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Divesh Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-804, Veracious Vani Vilas Ward-1(1), Apartments, Doddaballapur Faridabad Main Road, Yelahanka, (Haryana) Bengalure-560064, Karnataka Pan: Aehpv6594H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Balaja V, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…1345/Ahd/2019);  Order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Paris Elysees India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 357/JPR/2022  Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500. 4 Ground No.6: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. JAO to allow credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 19,53,556 as claimed in the Return of Income and also reflected in Form 26AS as against TDS credit of only Rs. 80,012 allowed in the Intimation under Section 143(…

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…6 ITR 34 (SC) laid down a ratio that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered by the courts. This vie view is reaffirmed by Hon'ble.SC, in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. 291 ITR 500(SC). The Hon'ble SC has stated as under: "This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (217) ITR 597 (SC)) Raymond Woollen Mills Lid. v. ITO 1999 (236) ITR 34 (SC)] 6.5 Surprisingly, the AR did not relied upon the objectio…