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 367,181 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.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax)

ITA/919/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…. This was done and objectively ascertained as is clear from the "reasons to believe" recorded which refer to the turnover and sales of the Indian subsidiary. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri stock Brockers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), it was observed that at the ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 11 of 14 stage of issue of notice/recording of reasons the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Conclusi…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/918/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…. This was done and objectively ascertained as is clear from the "reasons to believe" recorded which refer to the turnover and sales of the Indian subsidiary. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri stock Brockers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), it was observed that at the ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 11 of 14 stage of issue of notice/recording of reasons the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Conclusi…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/917/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…. This was done and objectively ascertained as is clear from the "reasons to believe" recorded which refer to the turnover and sales of the Indian subsidiary. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri stock Brockers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), it was observed that at the ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 11 of 14 stage of issue of notice/recording of reasons the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Conclusi…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/920/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…. This was done and objectively ascertained as is clear from the "reasons to believe" recorded which refer to the turnover and sales of the Indian subsidiary. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri stock Brockers Private Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), it was observed that at the ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 11 of 14 stage of issue of notice/recording of reasons the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Conclusi…

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Bidhichand K Bansal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4971/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2012-13 Dy Cit Central Circle 2(3), Shri Bidhichand K Bansal, Mumbai 109, Reti Bunder, Darukhana, Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Pan Aaepb8990N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Krishan Singh DehiyuFor Respondent: Shri Ketan L Vajani
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 53A

…esh tangible material or in absence of any new or additional information notice issued us 148 is bad in law. 8.4 The contention of appellant is not acceptable in view of the decision of Apex Court in case of ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500. In this case it is held that processing of return us 143(1) (a) is not an assessment order and if AO notices subsequently that income has escaped the assessment, still he can issue notice us 148 of the IT Act. The Hon'ble S.C. in above case has observed as under: "18. So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

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

…, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H)…

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W. P. No.30388/2015 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/s. T T K PRESTIGE LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.135, "BRIGADE TOWERS" 11TH FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS P.A HOLDER SRI. N.RADHAKRISHNAN. ...PETITIONER (BY Dr. KRISHNA R.B., ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BENGALURU, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANA BHAVAN No.14/3, OPP. RBI,…

M/S. Motherson Air Travel Agencies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2405/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Smt. Beena A. Pillaimotherson Air Travel Dcit Agencies Ltd., Circle 5(1), 2Nd Floor, F-7, Block B-1, New Delhi Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Vs. Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1993R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K.Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.R.Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, is sufficient. 4.1.3 Further, sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is nto a requirement. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 has held when the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, the law does nto require that Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact of legal evidence or conclusion. The material required for conclusively proving the escapement of income is not concerned at the stage of reo…

P.C. Pantulu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 278/HYD/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

…for reopening of the assessment. Moreover, the returns were accepted u/s. 143(1) and there was no scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd [291 ITR 500] (SC) will equally apply to the facts of the case. Accordingly, grounds pertaining to reopening are dismissed. 6.1. Coming to the issue of business loss, admittedly assessee has originally filed return of income showing the capital loss on sale of shares, whereas the enclosed statement indicates that assessee was trading in the shares and the lo…

P.C. Pantulu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 277/HYD/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

…for reopening of the assessment. Moreover, the returns were accepted u/s. 143(1) and there was no scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd [291 ITR 500] (SC) will equally apply to the facts of the case. Accordingly, grounds pertaining to reopening are dismissed. 6.1. Coming to the issue of business loss, admittedly assessee has originally filed return of income showing the capital loss on sale of shares, whereas the enclosed statement indicates that assessee was trading in the shares and the lo…

P.C. Pantulu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 275/HYD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

…for reopening of the assessment. Moreover, the returns were accepted u/s. 143(1) and there was no scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd [291 ITR 500] (SC) will equally apply to the facts of the case. Accordingly, grounds pertaining to reopening are dismissed. 6.1. Coming to the issue of business loss, admittedly assessee has originally filed return of income showing the capital loss on sale of shares, whereas the enclosed statement indicates that assessee was trading in the shares and the lo…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT, D.R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…7 (Delhi)/20161 286 CTR 474 (Delhi). • Yoqendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/20141 227 Taxman 374 (SC). • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others T236 ITR 341. • ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007]161 Taxman 316 (SC)/2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/r20071 210 CTR 30 (SC). • Yuvraj v. Union of India 315 ITR 841 (SC). • Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT T20171 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). • Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (62 taxmann.com 215. 234 Taxman 771). • Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (52 taxmann.com 449) Madras High Court Page 6 of 21 ITA 850/Del/2012 A.Y.:2003-04 ITO Vs. Sh.Sajjan Kumar Goel c…

Manasa Associats, Rajahmundry vs. The ITO, Ward - 3, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.89/Viz/2014 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Manasa Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.79-18-25 Ward-3 Omkar Street Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aanfm7178G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…o section 147. Once the case does not fall under the proviso to section 147 the belief of the assessing officer is sufficient with regard to escapement of income. This view is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hon’ble apex court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 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…

DCIT, Central Circle II, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sab Udyog Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 980/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Mona Mohanti, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

…iled written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd.” (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). His contention has been that in the case in hand the assessment was not done originally u/s. 143(3) hence the estimation in question has been rightly made u/s. 153A of the Act by the AO. He has further contended that the principal laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.” 137 ITD 287 can…

DCIT, Central Circle II, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sab Udyog Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 979/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Mona Mohanti, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

…iled written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd.” (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). His contention has been that in the case in hand the assessment was not done originally u/s. 143(3) hence the estimation in question has been rightly made u/s. 153A of the Act by the AO. He has further contended that the principal laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.” 137 ITD 287 can…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…s order us/ 263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. This judicial pronouncement squarely defends the case of the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble Court duly 48 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) b. CIT vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe (P) Ltd. (1991) 97 CTR (Kar) 117 (1992) 194 ITR 159 (Kar) c. CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ashesh Brothers, Mumbai

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

ITA 6742/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ninghshen
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rson could have formed a requisite belief. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v/s ITO, 236 ITR 34 (SC); ii) ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhavari Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500; iii) Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, 78 ITR 466; iv) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v/s DCIT, 52 DTR 353; and v) Piaggio Vehicles v/s DCIT, 290 ITR 377. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It 7 M/s. Ashesh Brothers is evident from the mate…

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6657/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-5(2), M/S Century Metal New Delhi Vs. Recycling Pvt. Ltd., W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 36/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 6657/Del/2017) Ay: 2009-10 M/S Century Metal Acit, Circle-5(2), Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh,CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO 227 Taxman 374 (SC) ii) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO 236 ITR 34 iii) R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasutrbhai Lalbhai 109 ITR 537 (SC) iv) ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 210 CTR 30 (SC) v) Yuvraj v. UOI 315 ITR 84 (SC) vi) Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. v. PCIT 2017 TIOL 253 SC-IT 7 Apart from the above, the ld. AR contended that even the approval granted was mechanical and therefore not valid. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) ITA No. 335/2015 dated 11.1.2017 (Del) Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. ii) 79 ITR 6…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…matter. This judicial pronouncement squarely defends the case of the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble Court duly considered the following decision a. Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) b. CIT vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe (P) Ltd. (1991) 97 CTR (Kar) 117 (1992) 194 ITR 159 (Kar) c. CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) 46 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs…

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Hoogly, Hooghly vs. Swapan Kumar Mondal, Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1952/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Court, in the case of Prashant S Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 had an occasion to deal with this question and also consider the scope of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 in this regard. After elaborately considering Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokes (P.) Ltd. (supra), Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court have observed that "Hon'ble Supreme Court held that so long as the ingredients of section147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedi…