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.

Naozer Bejon Baldawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

…for reopening of the assessment under the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) are satisfied for the year under appeal. In this respect, we also rely upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (291 ITR 500) wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that the word “reason” in expression “reasons 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 obser…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ssee originally when the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and hence I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 it is not a case of change of opinion. The decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd(2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) is relevant. At the stage of issuance of notice u/s 148 what is required is a prima-facie belief that based on incriminating tangible information received by the AO that income has escaped assessment. There is a requirement of live link between the tangible incriminating material received by the AO and the formation of belief that the income…

Shri Girish Devichandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4295/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Girish Devichandra Doshi Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(3) V. Room No. 220, 2Nd Floor Flat No. 8, K.Y.S. Niwas 7, Mughbhat Lane Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Khandilkar Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aacpd 4508 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…ment was reopened based on the information received from the DGIT(Inv.) and therefore, I am of the view that there is tangible material 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 u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment 4 Shri Girish Devichandra Doshi 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 1-41989, as also section…

Chetan Shashikant Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4294/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Chetan Shashikant Shah Income Tax Officer - 13(3)(1) V. 1St Floor, Office No. 101 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 33, Dariyasthan Street Mumbai-400 020 Masjid, Mumbai – 400 003 Pan: Aacps 9153 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…ment was reopened based on the information received from the DGIT(Inv.) and therefore, I am of the view that there is tangible material 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 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 1-41989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially dif…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of Assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2144/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aaacl-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aaacl-5419R ( Cross Objector ) ( Department )

For Appellant: S/Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43(1)(a)Section 68

…be challenged on the ground of change of opinion because in Section 143(1) intimation, no opinion is expressed and the return is merely accepted as it is. Delhi High Court referred to decisions of Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Zaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 SC and DCIT Vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. 373 ITR 661 (SC). In para-37 of its order the Court in the case of Indu Lata Rangwala (supra) refused to express any opinion on the question whether fresh material is required for forming believe regarding escapement of income. ITA No.2144/K/17 & CO No. 91/K/17 A.Y 2009-10 ITA No.2…

Shri Sanjiv Walia, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 355/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 355/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 69A

…nts are found not reliable to yield the true business income, is unsound and not tenable in law. The reason is simple. The cash credit, as explained by the Apex Court per its’s several decisions (viz. Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)), is itself an evidence of receipt of money. The same, accordingly, where not satisfactorily explained as to its nature and source, is deemed as income (sec.68). Section145(3), on the other hand, gets attracted when the assessee’s accounts are not correct and complete, or where the method of accounting followed is such as is not amenable to…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1159/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…e belief of the AO is required as to escapement of income rather than having conclusive proof/evidence of escapement of income . Reference is drawn to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 year has escaped assessment. The word 'reason' in the phrase reason to believe would mean cause or justification. If the Assessi…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1158/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…e belief of the AO is required as to escapement of income rather than having conclusive proof/evidence of escapement of income . Reference is drawn to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 year has escaped assessment. The word 'reason' in the phrase reason to believe would mean cause or justification. If the Assessi…

Ranmal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4074/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ranmal Pukhraj Jain, 502, Income Tax Officer- Admji Building, 403, Vs. 17(3)(1), Room No.621, Narshinath Street, 6Th Floor, Pirmal Mumbai-400009. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj7271J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ranmal Pukhraj Jain, 502, Income Tax Officer- Admji Building, 403, Vs. 17(3)(1), Room No.621, NarshiNath Street, 6th floor, Pirmal Mumbai-400009. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AAEPJ7271J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Jitendra Singh, AR Revenue by : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR Date of Hearing : 16/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 27/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant a…

Shri Jitendra Jugraj Bokadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4205/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jitendrajugrajbokadia, Income Tax Officer- Room No. 4, Godavari Vs. 19(2)(1), Matrumandir, Bhavan, 1St Floor, Bhandari Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Street, Girgaon, Mumbai- Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 400004 Pan No. Abypb8336P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)

…assed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1). In the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), it has been held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment. Therefore, in the present case, the AO has rightly reopened the assessment u/s 148 on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries from bogus bill providers. Shri Jitendra Jugraj In…

Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aligarh

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…case of Great Arts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2002) 257 ITR 639 (Delhi). The assessee cannot challenge sufficiency of belief – ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR (SC). In another case Hon’ble SC in case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 has held that at the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. This is so because formation of the belief is within the realm of the subjecti…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gladidiolus Properties & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2924/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2924/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-9(3)(2) M/S. Gladiolus Property & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. Room No.418, 4Th Floor C-601, Vrindavan बनाम/ Behind Dindoshi Bus Depot Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Gokuldham, Malad (E) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 097. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-0676-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad-Ld. Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad-Ld. CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rits with partial success before Ld. first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 18/01/2017 wherein Ld. first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT Vs. Rakesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd. [291 ITR 500] upheld the reassessment proceedings and proceeded to examine assessee’s claim on merits. 3.2 Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee asserted that the primary ingredients of Section 68 were fulfilled by the assessee on the strength of documentary evidences and therefore, additions were not justified. It was submitted that the assessee filed each detail…

Chaganlal Pukhraj Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Awanghi Gimson-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…bills which suggested escapement of income in the hands of the assessee and the sufficiency of reasons, at this stage, was not material. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 to arrive at a conclusion that the reassessment proceedings were perfectly valid. It was also observed that the first proviso to Section 147 was also not attracted. In the above background, the reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. 3.3 Proceeding further, the assessee’s statement u/s 131 as recorded by Ld. AO was noted, on the basis of…

Lexplosion Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7762/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shishya Edutech (P) Ltd. Ito 4346/4-C, 1St Floor, Ansari Vs Ward – 23(2) Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi -02 C/O Shri S. K. Sahpathi House No.579, Sector -16A, Faridabad -121002 Pan No. Aahcs9225R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…hotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT Vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 8 20. ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. Yuvraj Vs. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 13. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the case…

Sh. Jaspal Singh S/O Sh. Swaran Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 154

…(SC)). How could, then, the reasons recorded be assailed, at which stage all that is relevant is a honest, prima facie, opinion, of the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment (refer, inter alia, Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC)). Neither the ‘reason/s recorded’ nor the issue of notice u/s. 148(1), conferring jurisdiction for reassessment, is thus invalid. 4.3 Further, the jurisdiction to assess stands thus validly assumed in the instant case upon issue of notice u/s. 148(1) on 24/3/2011 (Upadhyaya (R.K.) v.…

Varnam Exporrts, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3781 to 3785/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s Varnam Exports v. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 28 Mansurali Mansion 1st Floor, 2nd Bhatwadi Lane Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AABFV 4600 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Divyesh Fotaria Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…

Varnam Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3784/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3781 to 3785/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s Varnam Exports v. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 28 Mansurali Mansion 1st Floor, 2nd Bhatwadi Lane Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AABFV 4600 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Divyesh Fotaria Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…

Varnam Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3783/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3781 to 3785/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s Varnam Exports v. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 28 Mansurali Mansion 1st Floor, 2nd Bhatwadi Lane Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AABFV 4600 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Divyesh Fotaria Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…

Varman Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3782/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3781 to 3785/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s Varnam Exports v. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 28 Mansurali Mansion 1st Floor, 2nd Bhatwadi Lane Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AABFV 4600 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Divyesh Fotaria Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…

Varnam Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3781/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3781 to 3785/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s Varnam Exports v. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 28 Mansurali Mansion 1st Floor, 2nd Bhatwadi Lane Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AABFV 4600 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Divyesh Fotaria Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…