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.

Pankaj Kumar Dani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 341/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. KFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

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

…issued on the basis of fresh information and tangible material, therefore correctly held that the reopening and order u/s 147 was proper in the present case. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vrs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) held as under:- "The word 'reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assess…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) and Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500(SC) it is clear that 9 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs Godawari Estates Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata processing of a case u/s 143(1) is not an assessment, which fact has been admitted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Indu Lata Rangwala v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, WP(C) 1393/2002 in their decision dated 18.05.2016. 3) Hence, there now occu…

Reliant Pipes & Tubes P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3383/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3383/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Reliant Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-5(3)(1), बनाम/ 3/5, Ground Floor, Sakar Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr 8444 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 133(6)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:- 6 Reliant Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO "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…

Meru Impex, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2660/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2660/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Meru Impex Acit-Circle 17(2), बनाम/ 15, 1St Floor, Agiary Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, Osman Manzil, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafm 6289 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 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)-28, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 10% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.4,99,55,341/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan

Section 133(6)

…ed assessment year from different parties. Based upon this information, the assessment was reopened. The ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on various case laws including the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500, which is quite relevant and fully justify the reopening. The credibility of information relating to reopening remains un-assailed. In such factual scenario, the assessing officer has made the necessary enquiry. The issue of notice to all the parties have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to provide any confirmation from any of the…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1633/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ly during the course of the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11. Further, the claim of formation of opinion in s. 143(1) proceedings is, again, unfounded, both in facts and in law. As clarified in CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), the same cannot be regarded as an assessment as no opportunity to the assessee is contemplated thereunder. And, further, a failure to take steps u/s. 143(3) would not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings when the return had been earlier subject to processing u/s. 143(1). The ambit of the two procedures is completely…

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1632/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1631/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

DCIT, Kumbakonam vs. Kali Bmh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1186/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

Dimpy Enterprses, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234

…val submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We begin with the 1st ground of appeal. As mentioned hereinbefore, the AO reopened the assessment made earlier u/s 143(1) by issuing notice u/s 148. In ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) in not an assessment. It held the notice issued u/s 148 as valid. Thus we hold that the AO has rightly issued notice u/s 148 on the basis of information received from the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai. Thus the 1st ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.1 We now turn…

Subhash V.Kanekar, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1748/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Pruseth, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…sions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. As mentioned hereinbefore the AO has reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 the earlier assessment made u/s 143(1). In ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) in not an assessment. It Shri Subhash V. Kanekar held the notice issued u/s 148 as valid. In the instant case the AO had received specific information that the assessee had merely taken entries of purchases from hawala dealers reflected in the website of the Sales Tax Departme…

Srikem Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6399/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Srikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Acit-8(2) 311 Jogani Industrial Estate Mumbai. Vs. Chunabhatti Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadcs5022Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J. Ravindra, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2017

For Appellant: Mr. J. Ravindra, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ns and perused the relevant materials on record. We begin with the 4th ground of appeal. We find M/s Srikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 4 that the AO has reopened the assessment made earlier u/s 143(1). In the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that intimation u/s 143(1) (a) is not an assessment. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 issued by the AO was held to be valid. The issue being similar, we hold the notice u/s 148 issued by the AO in the instant case as valid and dismiss the 4th ground of appeal filed by the assessee. 7.1 Then we come to the 1st…

Shree Chemtech Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

…based 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 incom…

Sumit M. Malhotra, Kalyan vs. ITO 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6697/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6697 & 6698/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Mr. Sumit M. Malhotra Income-Tax Officer 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, C/O. M/S. S. M. Steel Traders बनाम/ 702, “A” Wing, Archies Apartment, Murbad Road, Vs. Oak Baug, Near Railway Station, Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Kalyan (W) – 421 301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaypm 8541 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 148

…f based on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the hilt. 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. td, 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…

Bhaveshwar Traders, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2730/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2730/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bhaveshwar Traders Astt. Cit-31(1), बनाम/ Gala No. 15, Guffa Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Opp. Jain Mandir, Jogeshwari (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 060 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifb 5683 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Mistry ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 29.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 100% Of Bogus Purchase, Amounting To Rs.22,39,511/-. The Assessee Has Also Raised Ground Challenging The Reopening Of This Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh MistryFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…based 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 incom…

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3132/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garadia, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah ITO-3(5) 28, Tapasya HSG SCTY, 2nd floor, Rani Vs. above ICICI Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. PAN No. ANLPS6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2nd floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 PAN No. ANLPS6347J App…

Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2320/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garadia, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Smt. K.R.Yashodha, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 745/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Dandapani, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54F

…ed some relevant facts which leads to concealment of income and later those facts come before the assessing officer the notice u/s 147/48 can be issued validly. 7.3 The apex court in the case of ACIT vs Rajesh Jhavery Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500 after considering various decisions rendered by it in the past, construed the words 'reason to believe' in section 147 of the Act and held that, if the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose that any income has escaped assessment, then it could be said that the AO had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped asses…

Manish D. Mandhania, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 33(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1211/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

Section 147Section 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, 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:- 7 ITA No.1211/Mum/2017. Shri Manish D.Mandhania. "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 ca…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/JPR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…pplicability to the facts of the present case. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an in-built idea of fairness to taxpayer (Asst. CIT v. 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 which the Department opened the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Raymond…

Mitesh Chimanlal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4567/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…see. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), has dismissed the legal ground challenging the reopening raised by the assessee by following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd 291 ITR 500 (SC) and by observing that the AO has reopened the assessment by following the due procedure. On merits, the Ld.CIT(A), for the detailed reasons mentioned in his order, has held that profit element involved in such bogus purchases can only be added and, therefore, relying upon the judgement of Vijay Proteins Ltd vs CIT 58 ITD 428, confirmed di…