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 367,182 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.

Intime Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6357/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…viding reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. b. Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd., case reported in 236 ITR 34 (SC) on the aspect of sufficiency of reasons while reopening the assessment. c. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) on the aspect of sufficiency of reasons while reopening the assessment. d. Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 302 ITR 275 wherein it was held that information from Enforcement Directorate showing inflation of purchases could be a good ground for issuing notice u/s.148 o…

La Cera Mall Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12 (3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 337/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 337/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) La Cera Mall Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer Plot No.44/A, Govt. Ind. Ward-12(3)(3) Vs. Est., Opp. Ipca Room No.224, Aayakar Laboratories, M. G. Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- Charkop, Kandiwali (West), 400020. Mumbai-400067. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 461/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ La Cera Mall Pvt. Ltd. Ward-12(3)(3) Plot No.44/A, Govt. Ind. Vs. Room No.224, Aayakar Est., Opp. Ipca Bhavan, M. K. Road, Laboratories, M. G. Road, Mumbai-400020. Charkop, Kandiwali (West), Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl9996K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 461/M/2020 A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e‟s income to the extent of Rs.5, 05,00,000/- has escaped assessment for the A Y 2010-11 within the meaning of sec 147 of the I. T. Act. 6 461/M/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 5. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P} Ltd Vs ACIT (2007) 291 ITR 500 has held that section 147 of the Income-tax Act 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 Assessing Officer has cause…

Kamlesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1462/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kanandan, D.R

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…o obligation is cast upon him to have finally ascertained the said fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Our aforesaid view is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500, wherein the Hon‟ble Court had observed as under : 16. Sec. 147 authorises and permits the AO 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 AO has cause or justific…

Chandra Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1524/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Chandra Financial Services Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Achal Building, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Income Tax-2(1)(1), 21, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Sahu, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 73

…e belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the year under consideration had escaped assessment. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rejesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In its aforesaid order, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that a notice for reopening of an assessment u/s 147 of the Act could only be justified if the A.O has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. On a perusal of the aforesaid reasons to believe on the basis of wh…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Ashok Agarwal HUF

ITA/4/2021HC Rajasthan16 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Alok Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) (Internaqtional Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and the Stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4338/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…evidence before investigation unit to corroborate the fact of utilization of cash withdrawal. 5.6 In this regard, it may be relevant to take note of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500(SC), wherein the court spelt out that if the AO, for whatever reason, has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under: "firstly the AO must have reason to believe that Income profits or gains chargeable to Income tax have escaped…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236ITR 34 (SC). 8.14 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] 161…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…. 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 opinion- refer - A.L.A. Firm vs, CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai vs. Murarilal R. Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 7039/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Murarilal Income-Tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, Pb Marg, India Building, 19Th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Dy. Commissioner of Shri Murarilal Income-tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, PB Marg, India Building, 19th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN No. AHNPM8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date of pronouncement : 11/10/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: In this case, the ld. Third Member has agreed…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

…sment order is passed when the return is merely processed under Section 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent to the assessee. However, it has been recognised by the Supreme Court itself in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P). Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/ 161 Taxman 316, a decision that was relied upon by the revenue, that even where proceedings under Section 147 are sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under Section 143(1), the ingredients of Section 147 have to be fulfilled; the ingredient is that there should exist "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

Madan Mohan Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…ations are enough to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6. For supporting the reopening of assessment u/s 148 reliance has been placed on the following case laws: Asst. CIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. I Ltd (2007)(SC)291 ITR 500 It is important that the AO has cause for justification to know or suppose the income had escaped assessment. It can be said to have reason to belief that income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence or conclusion. Reason to believe has been interprete…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 148

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssing Officer which enabled him to form such a belief would not be examined. A reference in this respect is made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500." 13. The next contention that the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate any material enabling him to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is fallacious. The Assessing Officer recorded detailed reasons pointing out the material available which had a live link with formation of belief that the income chargeable to tax…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ome had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion on facts. There is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration.—Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 : (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) relied on. iii. Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 329 ITR 0110 (Delhi High Court) Reassessment—Reason to believe—Absence of material or rational belief— AO was made aware of the situation by the Investigation Wing and there is no mention that the companies who had invested shares in petitioner company were fictitious—Wh…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law. 17 ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that so long as the conditions of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings under section 147 and failure :o take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when I.T.As. No…

Wipro Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/20040/2019HC Karnataka25 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254Section 92C

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.20040/2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: WIPRO LIMITED, DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 035, REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT – TAXATION, SRI BALASUBRAMANIAN K., SON OF SRI KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. … PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.GANESH, SR. COUNSEL A/W. SHRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, 2ND FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, BMTC BUILDING, 8 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,…

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2062/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal

Section 132(1)

…ealm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 21 7 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 8.7 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. 8.8 Any fresh information received by the A.O. can entitle him to issue notice u/s.148, if on the basis of such information he has prima fac…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3968/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal

Section 132(1)