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 367,359 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

Issues it is cited on

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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…he AO has already been decided, and the CIT (A) subsequently decided said issue. Therefore, said assessment order has been merged with the order of CIT (A). Our view, is further fortified by the decision of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 Page 82 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 (SC) and also for the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312(SC) held that where no new material come to notice of the AO after completion of as…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…he AO has already been decided, and the CIT (A) subsequently decided said issue. Therefore, said assessment order has been merged with the order of CIT (A). Our view, is further fortified by the decision of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 Page 82 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 (SC) and also for the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312(SC) held that where no new material come to notice of the AO after completion of as…

Asst CIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S B & M Buildcon, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7472/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ed during the course of search and seizure action. It has been submitted that an intimation u/s 143(1) could not be considered to be an assessment in the background of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500 23/05/2017) wherein it was observed that: - It is significant that the acknowledgement is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any "assessment" is done by them? The reply is an emphatic "no". The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the app…

B & M Buildcon, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6674/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ed during the course of search and seizure action. It has been submitted that an intimation u/s 143(1) could not be considered to be an assessment in the background of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500 23/05/2017) wherein it was observed that: - It is significant that the acknowledgement is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any "assessment" is done by them? The reply is an emphatic "no". The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the app…

B & M Buildcon, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6673/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ed during the course of search and seizure action. It has been submitted that an intimation u/s 143(1) could not be considered to be an assessment in the background of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500 23/05/2017) wherein it was observed that: - It is significant that the acknowledgement is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any "assessment" is done by them? The reply is an emphatic "no". The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the app…

Shri Suresh Chand Nahata, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 355/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke Shri Suresh Chand Nahata The Ito Vs. 1214, Partaniyon Ka Rasta Ward- 1(1) Johri Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaypn 3419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13-12-2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2.1 None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing Despite The Notice Was Duly Received By The Assessee As Per Acknowledgment Available On Record. The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Has Though Filed The Written Submission Vide Letter Dated 12-12-2019. 2 Shri Suresh Chand Nahata Vs Ito , Ward-1(1), Jaipur Accordingly, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Propose To Hear & Dispose Off This Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte By Considering

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…come Tax (Investigation) that assessee had received bogus loss from, his broker by client code modification, reassessment on basis of said information was justified" (vi) In the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) /291 ITR 500 (SC)/ [2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC),it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: “So long as the conditions of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when int…

Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2404/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Kolkata 184/A, Regent Colony, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr1237M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2019 Passed In Case No.791/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 27.01.20 Explaining Five Days’ Delay To Be Attributable To Various Procedural Aspects & Compilation Of Necessary Records & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, I Condone The Impugned Delay Of Five Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…om 15/210 Taxman 57 (Punj. & Har.) 3. Vikram Kothari (HUF) v. State of U.P . [2011] taxmann.com 280/200 Taxman 152 (All.) 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bom.) 5. Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 Radix Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) v. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor [2005] 147 Taxman 12 (All.) 7. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 661 (M.P.) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007]294 ITR 620/[2008] 168 Tax…

Shrimati Neetima Goyal, Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 184/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 44A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, अमृतसर न्यायऩीठ, अमृतसर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.184/ASR/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., PIN-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PANNo. : AICPG 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement :…