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 367,296 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.

Ramdev Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1722/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…ion of the assessee with a financial company was bogus as the said assessee. He also relied on the following decisions for the above proposition:- i) Yuvraj vs. Union of India (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom); ii) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); iii) Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT; iv) Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bombay); v) Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del); vi) Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj); vii) Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 82…

Shriya Devi Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1523/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Gopal Chand Mundhra and Sons, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1375/DEL/2019[2011-121]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-121

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6702/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co. Vs Ward – 18 (1) Chartered Accountants, 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaacn0805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68

…27 Taxman 374 (SC) 2. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others 236 ITR 3. Yuvrai v. Union of India Bombay High Court r20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) 4. ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007]210 CTR 30 (SC) 5. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT 6. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court [2014] 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) 7. Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bombay High court [2013] 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bomba…

Damyanti Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1721/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Gopal Chand Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

Hussian Travels, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1266/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Hussian Travels, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfh 1250L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 147

…hnologies in ITA No. 153/Ahd.2013, order dated 17/01/2017. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities, also relied on the decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC). M/s Hussain Travels, Sec’bad. 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. With regard to ground No. 2, the assessment was reopened after 4 years, but, before 6 years. Assessee objects that the reopening was bad in law, as the AO reopened the assessment because of audit objection and he has not found any new evi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…rded on the same date i.e. 26.07.2013 and the proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. In assessment year 2008-09, the DRP had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) to uphold re-assessment proceedings. Similarly, re-assessment proceedings were upheld in assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. He further pointed out that identical reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment in the case of Sandvik Systems Development AB, for assessment year 2008-09. He referred to the copy of reasons recorded for reo…

Sachin Anantray Ghelani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2078/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ Ito 27(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpg2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ ITO 27(3)(2) 4th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACHPG2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue by: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Dat…

Sunil Kanayalal Gambani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1179/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…R 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). Relying on the above case-laws, the Ld. DR submits that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As rec…

Hitesh Tilokchand Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…nt was reopened based on the information received from the DGIT(Inv.) and therefore, I am of the view that there are tangible materials came on record after passing intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [291 ITR 500], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that intimation (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Hitesh Tilokchand Bohra u/s.143(1)(a) is not an assessment and upheld the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 and the reopening of assessment. Their Lordships clarified the matter as under: “17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Senorita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5388/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

…n’ble Supreme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 10.ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltdr20071 161 Tay " 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/r20071 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 to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when intimation…

Sanjay Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153A

…ITR 84 (Bombay)/r20091 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 4. ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/r20071 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 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 intimation under section 143(1) has been issued A…

ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Realstone Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1271/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Realstone 16(1)(5), Room No. Vs. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. A- 439, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 601, Crystal Palace, Link Bhavan M.K. Road, Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400064. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 201/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 1271/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Realstone Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. C/O Vs. 16(1)(5), Room No. 439, Ajay Daga& Co. Cas, 401-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan Pearl Arcade, Opp P K M.K. Road, Mumbai- Jewellers, Dawoodbaug 400020. Lane, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria & Mr. Sachidanand Debe, Drs Assessee By : Mr. R.C. Jain, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2019

For Appellant: Mr. R.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…erused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 30.09.2009 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…

Tumkur Dcc Bank Limited, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed and the appeal filed for AY

ITA 1/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri P.K Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT (DR)

Section 37(1)

…him to form the view that there is escapement of income which is chargeable to tax for asst. year 2015-06. We noticed that the ld CIT(A) has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 and has held that the AO has reason to believe that there was escapement of income. We further noticed that the ld CIT(A) has taken support of decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Rinco Chakaravarthy (2012) 20 taxmann.com 609 and also various other decisions. Accordingly he has confirmed the validity of reopening of…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR

Section 143(3)

…ance of 100% of alleged bogus purchases as was earlier done by the AO in reassessment order dated 11.03.2016, by holding as under:- “ 4. As regards ground No.l, I have considered the submissions made. In the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stockbrokers Pvt LTD vs ACIT 291 ITR 500( SC) Hb’ Apex Court held that "at the initiation stage, what is required is reason to believe , but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…ouncements for the arguments of change of opinion, reassessment proceedings based on revenue audit objections etc.: - ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 No. Case Law Judicial Authority Citation 1. ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Hon’ble Supreme 291 ITR 500 Pvt. Ltd. Court 2. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of Hon'ble Bombay High 2013 350 ITR 651 India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. Court 3. ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 188 ITR 247 Court 4. A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 189 ITR 285 Court 5. M/s. Eleganza Jewellery Limited vs. CIT Hon'ble Bombay High W.P.No.2763 of 2…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ssment and since there being no assessment, the question of reconsideration of the issue or change of opinion, does not arise. This view gets support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). The ld. AR has also argued that there was no failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully & truly all material facts. This argument is only relevant when assessment u/s 143(3) or 147 had been completed prior to the reopening. In view of the above mentioned factual and legal position, thus the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR become…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

European Aviation Holding Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 7565/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.B. Koli, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rials on record. In the instant case, the return of income filed by the assessee declaring a total loss of Rs.27,44,107/- was processed u/s 143(1). There was no assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment and the notice u/s 148 was validly issued. In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in case of return processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be sat…