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 367,368 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.

Ratnagiri Stainless P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6011/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Ito 5(3)(1), Mumbai. Ltd., Office No. 8, 4Th Floor, Vs. 245/247, Alankar Cinema Building S V P Road, Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aadcr2993P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…w and without jurisdiction as the AO has failed to provideof reasons so recorded before issuing notice u/s 148 to the assessee prior to completion of assessment. 7.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of a return u/s 143(1) and an assessment which is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the former case, the AO would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. In the case of Avirat Star Homes Venture P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 321 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring to the ab…

Shri Rameshkumar Savalachand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5263/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. ITO-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor Prop: M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1st Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No.AACPJ0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & ITA No.5263 & 5264/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. ITO-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor Prop: M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Stree…

Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5679/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. ITO-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor Prop: M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1st Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No.AACPJ0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & ITA No.5263 & 5264/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. ITO-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor Prop: M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Stree…

Shri Harshadbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Valsad

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

ITA 356/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.194/Srt/2017 & 356/Srt/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Harshadbhai Vallabhai V. Income Tax Officer, Patel , Ward- 3, Valsad At & Post Tighra, Nava Falia, Via- Dungari Valsad 393 375 Pan: [Afspp 8443 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, Itp िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 09.12.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Two Appeal By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Valsad [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2017 & 20.05.2019 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- -3, Valsad (In Short “The Ao”).

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…r. D.R. submitted that bank account was not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee and same was having substantial cash deposits. Further, as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) the prima- facie reasons for reopening of assessment is to be looked at the stage of reopening of assessment. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) in support of her contentions. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the…

Shri Harshadbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Valsad

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

ITA 194/SRT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.194/Srt/2017 & 356/Srt/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Harshadbhai Vallabhai V. Income Tax Officer, Patel , Ward- 3, Valsad At & Post Tighra, Nava Falia, Via- Dungari Valsad 393 375 Pan: [Afspp 8443 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, Itp िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 09.12.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Two Appeal By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Valsad [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2017 & 20.05.2019 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- -3, Valsad (In Short “The Ao”).

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…r. D.R. submitted that bank account was not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee and same was having substantial cash deposits. Further, as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) the prima- facie reasons for reopening of assessment is to be looked at the stage of reopening of assessment. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) in support of her contentions. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the…

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ee in such cases cannot assail the reopening on the ground that the facts were already placed on record and that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs, Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (291 ITR 500) observed that the word 'reason' in the expression 'reason to believe' would mean cause or justification and if the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that the e…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…sufficient information and material in his possession to form ‘reason to 7 I.T.A. No.890/DEL/2012 believe’ that income had escaped assessment and by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), rejected the said objection of the assessee. 7. Lastly, on the issue that Assessing Officer had no credible information in his possession and without giving any opportunity to cross-examination, reopening is not justified. 8. Ld. CIT (A) held that Assessing Officer not only had sufficient material on record but had credible information fr…

Jt. CIT -(OSD), CC- 6(3), Mumbai vs. Krosslink Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3122/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhjcit (Osd), Central Circle-6(3) M/S Krosslink Infrastructure Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Ltd., 507/511, Vypar Bhavan, Air India Building, Vs. 49, P.D. Mellor Road, Nariman Point, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400009 Pan: Aabck2801R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Shri S.K. Mutsaddi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 2(24)Section 254(1)

…structure Ltd. CIT(A) in the impugned order. After considering the submission of assessee, the learned CIT(A) upheld the reopening by making reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (291 ITR 500) wherein it was held that if the assessing officer for whatever reasons, has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, where the case is not covered by the proviso to section 147, intimation under section 143 (1) cannot be treated to be in order of assessment, as there been no…

Chirag R. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…t the time of recording reasons for reopening the escapement of income need not be proved to the hilt. Furthermore we note that the earlier assessment was done under section 143(1). Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (291 ITR 500) has held that a processing under section 143(1) cannot be equated with an assessment order and it cannot be held that assessing officer has applied any mind. Subsequent reopening cannot be said to be change of opinion. In this view of the matter in our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) upholding the validity…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Team Plus Securities Ltd, New Delhi

In the result for AY 2004-05, ITA number 03/05/2006/del/2009 filed by the assessee is dismissed and ITA number 03/09/2001/del/2009 filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 3901/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…to the assessee. The assessee also raised an objection, which was also dealt with by the AO. The learned CIT – A relying on decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of assistant Commissioner of income tax vs Rajesh Javari Stock Brokers private limited 291 ITR 500, Raymond Wollen Mills Limited V ITO 236 ITR 34 held that issue of notice u/s 148 in the present case is justified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A with respect to the reopening of the assessment as tangible material was received from the investigation wing. In view of this ground number one of the appeal of the as…

M/S Team Plus Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result for AY 2004-05, ITA number 03/05/2006/del/2009 filed by the assessee is dismissed and ITA number 03/09/2001/del/2009 filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 3506/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…to the assessee. The assessee also raised an objection, which was also dealt with by the AO. The learned CIT – A relying on decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of assistant Commissioner of income tax vs Rajesh Javari Stock Brokers private limited 291 ITR 500, Raymond Wollen Mills Limited V ITO 236 ITR 34 held that issue of notice u/s 148 in the present case is justified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A with respect to the reopening of the assessment as tangible material was received from the investigation wing. In view of this ground number one of the appeal of the as…

ITO Ward- 16 (2), New Delhi vs. Team Plus Securities Ltd, New Delhi

In the result for AY 2004-05, ITA number 03/05/2006/del/2009 filed by the assessee is dismissed and ITA number 03/09/2001/del/2009 filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 2708/DEL/2008[2005-2006]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…to the assessee. The assessee also raised an objection, which was also dealt with by the AO. The learned CIT – A relying on decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of assistant Commissioner of income tax vs Rajesh Javari Stock Brokers private limited 291 ITR 500, Raymond Wollen Mills Limited V ITO 236 ITR 34 held that issue of notice u/s 148 in the present case is justified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A with respect to the reopening of the assessment as tangible material was received from the investigation wing. In view of this ground number one of the appeal of the as…

Dynacon Equipments Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2263/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssessment was framed by Revenue u/s.143(3) of the Act and return of income was originally processed u/s.143(1) of the 1961 Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) gets applicable as no opinion was initially formed by the AO as return of income was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. It is observed that reopening of the concluded assessment was done by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act w…

Dynacon Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssessment was framed by Revenue u/s.143(3) of the Act and return of income was originally processed u/s.143(1) of the 1961 Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) gets applicable as no opinion was initially formed by the AO as return of income was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. It is observed that reopening of the concluded assessment was done by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act w…

Hindustan Steel India, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hindustan Steel India, Income Tax Officer 19(1)(5), Shop No.32/32A, Madhav Bhuvan, Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo, 2Nd Floor, 138/152, Nanubhai Desai Road, 4Th Mumbai-400007. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aacfh6648F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surendra K. Chauhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri K. Bhoopathi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019

For Appellant: Shri Surendra K. Chauhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…cord. Firstly, we deal with the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. As mentioned earlier, the AO has reopened the assessment which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of a return u/s 143(1) and an assessment which is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the former case, the AO would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. In the case of Avirat Star Homes Venture P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 321 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring to the ab…

Chetan Chandulal Framewala, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4568/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

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

…dered opinion reasoning given by learned CIT(A) for upholding the validity of reopening on the ground that earlier no assessment has been done u/s. 143(3) and reliance placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (291 ITR 500) is misplaced. As in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has expounded that processing of order u/s. 143(1) cannot be equated to assessment. However, in the present case assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) f the Act. Hence, finding of learned CIT(A) that there was no assessment earlier and that Hon'ble Apex…

Empee Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1503/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.5 At this stage it will be relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with amended provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act and held as under: “16. Section 147 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 :- 17 -: year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in th…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kvf Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Cross-Objection of the Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 5731/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: And Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ltd., New Delhi. processed under section 143(1), therefore, reopening of the assessment is justified. The Ld. D.R. relied upon following decisions : i. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs., Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). ii. Central Provindes Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., vs. JTO [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC) iii. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) iv. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs., ITO [1003] 203 ITR 456 (SC) v. Calcutta Discount Co., Ltd., vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC). 8.1. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that reopening of the assessment is…

Shree Bhavani Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for A

ITA 1850/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment on the basis of information from the DGIT that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of a return u/s 143(1) and an assessment which is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the former case, the AO would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. In the case of Avirat Star Homes Venture P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 321 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring to the ab…

Shree Bhavani Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for A

ITA 1849/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment on the basis of information from the DGIT that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of a return u/s 143(1) and an assessment which is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the former case, the AO would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. In the case of Avirat Star Homes Venture P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 321 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring to the ab…