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.

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 500)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5712/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-5712/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) ACIT vs Engineering Projects India Ltd. Circle 8(1), Room No. 194, Core-3, Scope Complex-7, 1st Floor, C.R. Building, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACE0061C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CA Sh. Vinay Sethi, CA ORDER PER SH. H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.07.…

Jagson Carriers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3541/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jagson Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), Mumbai. 501, 5Th Floor, Sterling Vs. Chamber, Poona Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai- 400009. Pan No. Aaacj9344H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr Bhupendra Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jagson Carriers Pvt. Ltd., ITO-6(1)(1), Mumbai. 501, 5th floor, Sterling Vs. Chamber, Poona Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai- 400009. PAN No. AAACJ9344H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr Bhupendra Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date of pronouncement: 12/04/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. The appeal is direc…

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 206/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

…rein the Hon'ble Tribunal after noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd., [354 ITR 536] (Del) in which the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhavery Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2007) [291 ITR 500], came to the conclusion that initiation of re-assessment proceedings even in the case of issue of an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, where no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued within the time permitted under the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act should be based on tangible material. : 6 : 6. Ld.DR placed reliance on the order of th…

Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6628/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 6628/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, Vs Acit, A-57, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Circle-34(1), New Delhi-110052 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ackpa3670L Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Fca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-12, New Delhi Dated 13.07.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 250(6) By The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer To Initiate Reopening & Reassessment Of The Case U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 5,96,177/- Made By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Treating Certain Share Transactions As Bogus. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Recognizing The Fact That The Client Code Modification (Ccm) Was Done To Rectify The Genuine Errors Held At The End Of Broker For Which The Assessee Was Not Responsible. 2 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal 5. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Even When The Ld. Ao Failed To Provide The Details Of The Transactions Where Client Code Was Modified. 6. Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The It Act, 1961. 7. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Delete Or Add Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Of The Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of Assessment Made U/S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 6628/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, Vs ACIT, A-57, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Circle-34(1), New Delhi-110052 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACKPA3670L Assessee by : Sh. Pancham Sethi, FCA Revenue by : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2019 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 13.07.2018. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Reed Hycalog Limited Partnership, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6985/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 126Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

…of cross objection of the assessee, the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly rejected the plea of the assessee on validity of reopening of assessment after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers, 291 ITR 500 (SC) and also the fact that the writ 7 petition of assessee on this issue also stood dismissed by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. It was also submitted that the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is applicable when the payment of taxes is not made within the stipulated time. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that all the information were prov…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1327/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalnga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalnga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1325/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1308/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

M/S. Gmr Kamalaga Energy Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1307/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1236/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1235/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…minating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search. 11. This argument was also made by the Learned DR of the revenue that as per the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri, 291 ITR 500, an intimation is not an assessment order. She submitted that search in the present case was conducted on 11.10.2012 and out of four years in the present case, no assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) for any year. She submitted that for A. Y. 2008 – 09, only intimation was issued on 19.11.2009 against the return of income filed on 27.09.2008 a…

Ragbirsingh Maliksingh Rajpal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2Section 54FSection 56

…ant extract of the judgment referred in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) is again reproduced hereunder:- “3. On hearing the parties, we find that the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500, had an occasion to deal with identical facts, namely reopening Notices issued under Section 148 of the Act where assessment is completed earlier by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. In the above case, the Apex Court held that a Notice for reopening an assessment under Section 148 of the Act could only be justified if the Assessing Offi…

ITO WD 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ample Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1628/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

…ng the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11. As there was no scrutiny assessment done for this year, the so-called share premium having been received by the assessee was not examined. In view of the ratio of the decision of Rajest Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) no assessment u/s 143(1) has been carried out by the Assessing Officer.” 4. The assessee raised the objection against the reasons vide letter dated 09.11.2015 stating that the source has not been specified in the reasons recorded and the reopening without disclosing the source of ITAs No. 1628/Mum/2017 information would not be tangible in…

Nand Bhagwandas Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

ITA 5855/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5855/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…such circumstance, the action u/s.147 of the Act can very well be initiated in accordance with law. While reaching to the above conclusion, we draw strength from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500, wherein it was held as under:- "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax 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 AO has cause or justification…

Shishya Edutech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7726/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2353/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…have issued only bogus bills. Based on this information the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons that he has reason to believe that the income is escaped assessment. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [291 ITR 500] held as under: - “17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from 1-4- 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping as…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2352/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…have issued only bogus bills. Based on this information the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons that he has reason to believe that the income is escaped assessment. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [291 ITR 500] held as under: - “17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from 1-4- 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping as…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…lief. Falling in the realm of a subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority, the sufficiency of the reason/s could not be examined by the court, as held in Asst. CIT v. Rajesh 3 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) after a review of the judicial precedents. That the reasons can be on the basis of the same material, and it is not necessary that there should be new material, stands clarified in Sewak Ram v. ITO [2010] 236 CTR 462 (P&H); Tilak Raj Bedi v. Jt. CIT (in ITA No. 97 of 2009, dated 13/10/2009). The second ground on which the ld. CIT(A) has annu…

Smt. Vidhya Agarwal, Agra vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Agra

The appeal is allowed

ITA 335/AGR/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 148

…fore the Court that in the present case, no assessment has taken place and at the stage of s. 143(1), there is only intimation. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC).The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) has noticed the difference between the expression 'intimation' and 'assessment' and the Supreme Court held that in the scheme of things an intimation under s. 32 I.T.A No. 216 /Agra/2012 & Others 143(1)(a) cannot be treated as an order of assessment. The Supreme Court held that th…

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

What is ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

Jagson Carriers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Reed Hycalog Limited Partnership, Noida

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalnga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Kamalnga Energy Ltd, Bangalore

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

M/S. Gmr Kamalaga Energy Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

Ragbirsingh Maliksingh Rajpal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITO WD 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ample Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

Nand Bhagwandas Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

Shishya Edutech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

Smt. Vidhya Agarwal, Agra vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Agra