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 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.

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 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1640/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1450/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1449/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1448/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1411/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1410/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1409/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…for the impugned year. Though the ld. AR argued that the same would be applicable even for Section 143(1) proceeding, the same is not convincing for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stocks Brokers & Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 has held that to Proviso to Section 147 does not apply to intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the same would not tantamount to change of opinion. ITA Nos. 1409/Mum/2025 & Ors. (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20) Umbrella Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In the present case in hand, the reopening of the assessment would fall under the main provision to Secti…

Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 888/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम/ 73, Shyamal Dham Row 2(3)(1), Surat Vs. House, Godadara, Surat – 395 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bdhps8135D (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

…his case, the AO received information about substantial cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee who had not filed his return of income. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should ITA No.888/Srt/2024 A.Y 11-12 Anil R Sharma have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. Th…

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction remained with the AO till passing of final assessment order. The Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) has held that at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 what is required is only reason to believe but not the established fact of escapement of income. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court clearly goes to establish that the Assessing Officer is not confined to the grounds or reasons stated by him to reopen t…

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…e the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction remained with the AO till passing of final assessment order. The Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) has held that at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 what is required is only reason to believe but not the established fact of escapement of income. The proposition laid down by 15 ITA No. 961 To 963/JPR/2024 Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota. the Supreme Court clearly goes to establish that the Assessi…

Subhash Shah, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…Clearly in this case the AO was having tangible material to draw such inference. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAYMOND 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 4 | P a g e (INDIA) LTD. V ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008| 302 ITR275 (MAD.). It is further noted that the Pr. CIT has given his approval after application of mind and after considera…

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat
Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

…ny legal infirmity. In the case of ACIT Vs did not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the case of ACIT Vs did not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd [(2007 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)], ) 291 ITR 500 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: ......... If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or ......... If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to kn…

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Adv
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153A

…nd perusal and sanction please.” 5.4 As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd 291 ITR 500 291 ITR 500 for validity of the reassessment proceedings, the reasons recorded should be the reassessment proceedings, the reasons recorded should be the reassessment proceedings, the reasons recorded should be based on the relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable based on the relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable based…

Shashi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

…ng 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 Wo 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…

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…AO to form such a belief that income had escaped due to such client code modification and thus there was no live link between the material before AO and inference made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 had held that for validity of reason recorded it is essential that there should be a relevant material on which a reasonable person could make requisite belief. Thus, assessment could not be reopened validly on the basis of the above reasons recorded in absence of any tangible material to infer that income escaped in the case of assessee. 33 An…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

…nt information in my possession to issue notice under section 148 in the case of M/s. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. on the basis of reasons recorded as above." Revenue relied on the judgement in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SCC). After considering the submissions, The Hon'ble Court held that: "After having heard the counsel for the parties, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the respondent/assessee. We find that the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) made it absolutely clear that before an assessing officer issues a notice under section 148,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…original assessment. The AO pointed out that in this case there was, ‘tangible material’ on record, on the basis of which the re-assessment proceedings had been initiated. He also placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) for the proposition that the ld. AO was free to initiate proceedings under section 147, if all the ingredients of section 147 were fulfilled and failure to take steps under section 143(3), would not render the ld. AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings. The ld. AO also pointed out that the re-assessment proceedings had not been fi…

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1444/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

…ment proceedings are validly initiated, the AO's jurisdiction extends to the entire assessment and is not constrained solely to the original reason for reopening. 8. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291 ITR 500 (SC)] reinforces the position that the validity of reassessment proceedings depends exclusively upon the legitimacy and sufficiency of the reason to believe at the time the reassessment notice is issued, and not on subsequent developments or the ultimate sustainability of additions made. 9. Consequently, the appellant's reliance on Jet Airways (I…

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1443/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

…ment proceedings are validly initiated, the AO's jurisdiction extends to the entire assessment and is not constrained solely to the original reason for reopening. 8. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291 ITR 500 (SC)] reinforces the position that the validity of reassessment proceedings depends exclusively upon the legitimacy and sufficiency of the reason to believe at the time the reassessment notice is issued, and not on subsequent developments or the ultimate sustainability of additions made. 9. Consequently, the appellant's reliance on Jet Airways (I…