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 367,181 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 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.

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cross-Objector 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata....................................................................Respondent 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Sheth, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ssment order is passed when the return is merely processed under section 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent to the assessee. However, it has been recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC), that even where proceedings under section 147 are sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under section 143(l), the ingredients of section 147 have to be fulfilled; the ingredient is that there should exist ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to lax has escaped assessment. This judgment, does…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…008] 305 ITR 170 (Ker) • Vipan Khanna v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220 (P&H) 69 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 7.31 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. 291 ITR 500 (Supreme Court) held as under: “Under the scheme of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, and prior to its substitution with effect from June 1, 1999, what were permissible to be adjusted under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) were : (i) only apparent arithmetical errors in the return,…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d in the 3 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. section and there was information with the Assessing Officer from the ROC that the premium was at higher value. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (291 ITR 500) (Supreme Court). It was pleaded that sufficient and correctness is not required at early stages for which reliance was placed upon the decision in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. 236 ITR 34 (Supreme Court). In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vipul Jain, defended the impugned order by contending that it…

Usha Agarwal, Agra vs. ITO 4(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…m 15/210 Taxman 57 (P & H). 3. Vikram Kothari (HUF) Vs. State of U.P., [2011] Taxmann.com 280/200 Taxmann.com 152 (Alld). 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 Taxmann.com, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) V. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, [2005] 147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, [1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. ITO [1970] 77 ITR, 661 (MP) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. V. Assistant CIT, [2007] 294 ITR 620 [2008] 168 Taxman 251 (Mad.) 14. None of the j…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Uvaraj Natarajan, Chennai

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

ITA 3098/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3097/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Corporate Circle – 5(2), No.30, Arcot Road, Chennai -34. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaecp9975G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3098/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Shri Uvaraj Natarajan, The Acit, No.33, 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Chennai -34. Taylors Estate, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaapu6683R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. L. Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: 10.05.2018

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3097/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/s. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Corporate Circle – 5(2), No.30, Arcot Road, Chennai -34. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. PAN: AAECP9975G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3098/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Shr…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3097/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. L. Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: 10.05.2018

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Smt. Shalu Sood, Indore vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are

ITA 209/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…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…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…ion 143(1) of the Act and the order was not passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The DRP further held that reliance placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) was misplaced. Further support was made from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No.555/2012. The DRP thus, held the re-assessment proceedings to be not in accordance with the provisions of law and hence, not valid. The DRP did not decide the issue on merits, in view of holding the…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

M/S Deepraj Hospital P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 41/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITO [2002] 257 ITR 639 (Delhi). The assessee cannot challenge sufficiency of belief - ITO Vs. I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 30 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…

M/S Charan Singh Ice & Storage P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…wala dealer. The purchases shown by assessee are non-genuine purchases. In support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P.) Ltd. [(2007) 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500)]. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO made the reopening on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai through CIT(A)- 21, forwarding the list of parties received from the Sales Tax Authorities, Government of Maharashtra investigated about the…

Shanteelal Chenaramji Joshi, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 949/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…or reopening, AO followed due procedure of law and ascertained the fact by legal evidence and therefore, reasons recorded were not vague. Thus, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 258 ITR 137 apart from others, CIT(A) upheld the view of AO regarding initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Contents of Para 4 along with its sub-paras of the CIT(A)’s order are relevant in this regard. 5. With regard to merits of the addition of Rs.2…

Pankaj Kishor Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 966/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Pankaj Kishor Shah Ito-25(2)(2), बनाम/ 7/8, Neel Kamal, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Roshan Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acpps 1076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha N. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 30.12.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) - 44 ("The Cit (A)") Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Without Affording The Appellant A Proper Opportunity Of Cross Examination.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha N

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…sed on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the guilt. In this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "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 to know or suppose (hat inco…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 504/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akash Purochem Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 1/5, Kandhari Colony, 2Nd 10(2)(1), Aayakar Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 400071. Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akash Purochem Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 1/5, Kandhari Colony, 2nd 10(2)(1), Aayakar Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 400071. Churchgate, Mumbai. PAN No. AACCA9261A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2018 Date of pronouncement : 16/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12…

S. Gupta & Co., Jaipur vs. ITO 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2949/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2949/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. S. Gupta & Co. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2)(1), बनाम/ Metro House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafs 4486 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. L. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ased on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the guilt. In this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "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 to know or suppose (hat inco…

ITO 6 (3) (4), Mumbai vs. Krr Investment Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6008/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainito-6(3)(4), R.No 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ……………. Appellant M.K. Marg, Mumbai 400 020 V/S

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…re and assessment has been only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, the reopening notice must satisfy the test of having reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment (see Asst. CIT v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P)Ltd. 291 ITR 500). The reason to believe has to arrived at after applying one's mind to the material available and to reach prima facie view that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case…

Brics Gilt Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5320/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5320/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Brics Gilt Finance Ltd. Dcit Cir 1(1)(1), Now Known As M/S Brics Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, 1St Floor, Sadhna House, 570, Pin- Vs. P.H. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5685/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit Cir 1(1)(1), Brics Gilt Finance Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Now Known As M/S Mumbai, Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. बिधम/ Pin- Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Sadhna House, 570, P.H. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8885B अपीऱाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. T. Kepgen, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Sandeep Gosain:

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kepgen, DR

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

Emson Tools Mfg Corp Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(Cc-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaace3698M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit GargFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…that must be- held to be 'information' as a consequence of which he came to believe that the provisions of Section 34(l)(b) were attracted. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. in 291 ITR 500. I am in possession of information based on the analysis of facts and figures of assessment records from A.Y. 2008-09 onwards. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is applicable on the facts of the case. Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assess…

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITA 46/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA and Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Seema Meena,JCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 147Section 54B

…applicability to the facts of the present case. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the status with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayer (Asstt. CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). In determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings is valid, the court has only to see whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of Shri Om Prakash Rajoria vs ITO, Ward- 1(1), Alwar which the Department opened the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage a…