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 367,244 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.

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

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

ITA 3245/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)

…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…

Mesers Supertech Forgings(India) Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nds. Ltd Vs ACIT [W.P. No. 27780 of 2007 & M.P. of 2007 decided on 12.03.2008](Madras) Reassessment notice based on information from Enforcement Directorate showing possible inflation of purchases was valid notice. 4. ACIT Vs Raj eshJhaveri stock broker [2007]291 ITR 500 (SC) If the assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion In other words, at…

Shri. Sumir J. Hinduja vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/7/2017HC Karnataka02 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147Section 148(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260

…also urged that the aforesaid finding is a finding of fact. In 9 support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. Vs. ITO' (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), 'ACIT Vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.' 291 ITR 500 AND 'ITO Vs. SELECTED DALURBAND COAL CO. (P) LTD. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 162 and 'BAGMANE CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. Vs. CIT' (2015) 277 CTR 338 (KAR). 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. When a loan is advanced by a company to a registered share holder and other conditions mentioned in Sec…

M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/392/2016HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…37 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'ITO VS. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD', (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), 'ITO VS. K.L.SRIHARI (HUF) (2001) 250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein. However, once the time limit prescribed in Section 139(5) of the Act expires, the only remedy whi…

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” He has relied upon other judgments as under: - ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) - Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 236 ITR 34 (SC) 27 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 - Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs PCIT reported in 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) - Deniel Merchant (P) Ltd…

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” He has relied upon other judgments as under: - ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) - Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 236 ITR 34 (SC) 27 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 - Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs PCIT reported in 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) - Deniel Merchant (P) Ltd…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” He has relied upon other judgments as under: - ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) - Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 236 ITR 34 (SC) 27 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 - Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs PCIT reported in 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) - Deniel Merchant (P) Ltd…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” He has relied upon other judgments as under: - ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) - Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 236 ITR 34 (SC) 27 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 - Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs PCIT reported in 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) - Rajmandir Estate P Ltd vs PCIT reported in 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) - Deniel Merchant (P) Ltd…

Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-VI, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 256/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…Income Tax Act by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 12. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 has held that under section 147, if the AO, for whatever reason, has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment where the case is not covered by proviso to Section 147. Further, various Courts have held that while there must exist reasons for holding a belief of escapement of income, th…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 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…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 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…

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…able madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query to the learned authorised representative that honourable Supreme Court in case of Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri stockbrokers private limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) has held whether the reopening of the assessment is required to be upheld in view of the fact that the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income/profits or gains are chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment. It was further pointed out that that was also the case where the original return filed by the learned assessing…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…able madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query to the learned authorised representative that honourable Supreme Court in case of Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri stockbrokers private limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) has held whether the reopening of the assessment is required to be upheld in view of the fact that the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income/profits or gains are chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment. It was further pointed out that that was also the case where the original return filed by the learned assessing…

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…able madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query to the learned authorised representative that honourable Supreme Court in case of Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri stockbrokers private limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) has held whether the reopening of the assessment is required to be upheld in view of the fact that the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income/profits or gains are chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment. It was further pointed out that that was also the case where the original return filed by the learned assessing…

M/S. Exim India Oil Company Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2008[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 May 2021AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Tibrewal,, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 147Section 154Section 43B

…t against the Acts and Rules made thereunder, therefore, not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 7. Replying to above, ld CIT DR placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) and submitted that taxing income escaping assessment in the case of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) is covered by the main provision of section 147 as substituted w.e.f April 1, 1989 and initiating reassessment proceedings in the case of intimation would be covered by the main provision of section 147 and not the proviso thereto. Ld CI…

Spr Infrastructure India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 638/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) ITA Nos.638 & 639/Hyd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. SPR Infrastructure India Vs. Dy. Private Limited, Commissioner of Surya Soudha, Plot No.185, Income Tax, Ayyappa Society, Khanamet Circle 3(2), Village, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN AACCD4913G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao. Respondent By : Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R) Date of Hearing : 24.02.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2021.…

Asia Tv (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 8011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sreenivas Raghavan, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…t was the contention of the AO that M/s ZTL was held to be dependent agent of the assessee and also held to be constituting a PE of the assessee in India under Article 5(4)/5(5) of the DTAA between India and UK. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jahveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) it is held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment and notice u/s 148 is validly issued. In the instant case, as the AO has reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the return which are processed u/s 143(1), following the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold the reopening as valid. Accordingly, the 1st…

R.S. Shares & Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8031/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 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 act…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and other (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1997] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given infra. 8 Shri Jagdish U. We find that the assessee had filed before the AO a written submissio…

Mr. Krishna Kumar Pant, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…re must be some basis for forming such a belief. From the order of the A.O. it is clear that the AO had a belief and there was material on record to support the belief. Reference is also made to the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) which states if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped asstt he has jurisdiction to reopen the asstt. In the case of Bawa Abhai Singh v. Dy. CIT 253 ITR 83 the portion relevant to the issue is reproduced below:- 12 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 “Section 147 with effect from 1-4-19…