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.

Vijay Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 959/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Vijay Metal Corporation Ito-19(3)(5) 73, Habib Building, C.P. Tank Vs. 2Nd Floor, Matru Road, Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabfv4225D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Poorja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Poorja Swaroop, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…54 Total 15274171 Because of the above facts, the AO issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee on 19.09.2014. 4. In the present 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 and a notice u/s 148 issued was valid. In Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO (Mad) 340 ITR 454, CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. (Mad) 340 ITR 609 and ACIT v. Maersk Global ServicesCentre (India) (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 66 DTR 90, it has been held that in case of return of…

Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Bhiwandi vs. ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Asst. Commissioner Of Vishnu Compound, Vs. Income Tax Circle-1, Assbibi, Kalyan Road, Kalyan. Bhiwandi-421302 Pan No. Aatpb1608A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the above facts, the AO issued notice u/s 148 dated 20.06.2013 which was duly served on the assessee. 3.1 In the present 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 and a notice u/s 148 issued was valid. In Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO (Mad) 340 ITR 454, CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. (Mad) 340 ITR 609 and ACIT v. Maersk Global Services Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir 3 Centre (India) (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 66 DTR 90, it has been hel…

SHI vs. Hambho Narayan Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3029/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Shivshambho Narayan Ddit (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5T H Floor, Geetai Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers , V. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadts8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram and Ms.Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri. V Justin
Section 1Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…regarding donation disclosed by the assessee trust was valid. Dealing with this issue Hon'ble Court observed as under : "17. At this stage, we may refer the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316. The Apex Court has noted the difference in between the pre- existing section 147 prior to 1st of April, 1989 and its substitution thereafter. It has also considered that at the stage of notice as the case here is what is required is "reason to believe" but not the established fact of escapement of income. At this stage of issue of…

Jay Ma Durga Buildtech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2720/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

For Appellant: Arvind Sandhe, ARFor Respondent: Bhupendra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 92ASection 92E

…sis of materials before him to be examined and scrutinized on such evidence as may be available in the proceeding for reassessment. Further, the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 would be very relevant in order to reject the contention of the appellant Sec. 147 authorities and permits the AO to assess or reassess income charge-able 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 11 the…

Shah Impex, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 34, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Shah Impex The Asst. Commissioner Of 412, Swastik Bisa, Business Income Tax-34, Park, Behind Wadhani Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofs9058E

For Appellant: Vasanti B Patel, ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR
Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…n u/s 143(1) the same cannot treated as revised return or not filed in time. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tata Meteliks Ltd v. CIT (368 ITR 643), after 9 following the ratio of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd '(291 ITR 500) has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) does not constitute Assessment so as to disentitle assessee to file revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. Similar view is also taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar V. ITO (256 CTR 116). 12. Furthermore, in the following decisions a view has been taken that even in case of bela…

Ranjitpura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

ITA 1104/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri k.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssessment was reopened within the period of 4 years. Further, since the returns of income were processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhavari Stockbrokers Ltd., (291 ITR 500) (SC). In our view, the AO followed the procedure laid down and prescribed under the Act while initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for formation of belief, on the basis of material before him that any normal person would do in such circumstances to come to the reasonable belief that income of the assessee liable to tax had escaped assessmen…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Juliet Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known As Juliet Products Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 5975/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ef. Assessment Year 2009-10 (vii) The reasons referred to must show application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Further, the above view is fully supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [2007 291 ITR 500], the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- 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 Asses…

Juliet Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5452/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ef. Assessment Year 2009-10 (vii) The reasons referred to must show application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Further, the above view is fully supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [2007 291 ITR 500], the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- 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 Asses…

Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4086 To 4088/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah Ito, Ward 24(1)(4), 502, 5Th Floor, C-13, D-305, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, बनाम/ Off Tank Road, Orlem, Malad, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-64 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afxps 7904 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. K. Sharma & Ms. Taneshka Sharma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…ed 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, we 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…

Simplex Metal & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 222/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.222/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Simplex Metal & Alloys Ito-19(3)(3) Shop No. 25, Ground Floor, Room No. 202, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Harharwala Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Ardeshir Dady Street, S.V.P. Road, Near Alankar Cinema, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfs 5871 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 28.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 10.10.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Issue Raised Relates To The Validity Of Reopening & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,78,911/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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…

Mircon Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 47/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 47 & 48/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Mircon Infrastructure Private Limited Ito, Ward 10(2)(4), 505/506, Shalimar Morya Park, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ New Lind Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm 1309 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 101Section 106Section 131

…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…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2630/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2629/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2628/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2626/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2625/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Anita Sanjay Agrawal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Anita Sanjay Agrawal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2623/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…

Anita Sanjay Agrawal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…₹ 9,33,075/- was made in the hands of assessee. 8. The first issue decided by the CIT(A) was against re-assessment proceedings initiated and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. 9. The next issue which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that since the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue i.e. the party from whom the purchases were made, then the assessment order passed is to be quashed. The assessee…