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 367,154 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.

Shekhar Chand Keshiv (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1999-00 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1), Sh. Shekhar Chand Keshiv (Huf), D-173, Flatted Factory New Delhi Complex, Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan : Aahhs0258P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ramesh Goyal, Ca Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2017 Order

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1999-00 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1), Sh. Shekhar Chand Keshiv (HUF), D-173, Flatted Factory New Delhi Complex, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi. PAN : AAHHS0258P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CA Respondent by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 22.02.2017 Date of pronouncement 17.03.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 22/10/2010 of learned Commissioner of Income-t…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2629/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessment was reopened within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd (291 ITR 500) is clearly :-4-: I.T.A. Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 applicable and we, therefore, uphold the issue of notice under Section 147 of the Act and hold that the assessment is validly reopened. The assessee’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 4. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 are related to the assessment of business income as ‘income from property’. The assess…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2628/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessment was reopened within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd (291 ITR 500) is clearly :-4-: I.T.A. Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 applicable and we, therefore, uphold the issue of notice under Section 147 of the Act and hold that the assessment is validly reopened. The assessee’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 4. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 are related to the assessment of business income as ‘income from property’. The assess…

Janno, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

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

ITA 776/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal , CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54B

…as the service of notice was duly effected. 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 (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 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…

Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

ITA 6541/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…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…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…of the receipt of the information from the DDIT(Inv.) does not mean the ITO has not applied his mind in this connection, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAYMOND WOLLEN MILLS LTD. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC) and ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC) and CIT VS. India Terminal Connector System ltd, ITA 643/2011 Delhi HC that at the stage of initiation of Re - Asstt. Proceedings only primer -facie belief has to be formed for escaped income and not conclusively. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO &…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2754/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 33ASection 72

…s enshrined in the Sec 147 of the I.T. Act viz., reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Reliance was placed by the Assessee on the ratio laid down in the following decisions: (i) Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (291 ITR 500)(SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Foramers France (264 ITR 566) (SC) (iii) Kelvinators of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Del) affirmed in (320 ITR 561) ITA No.2754/Kol/2013 – M/s. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. A.Y.1999-2000 9 (iv) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) (Del) The CIT(A) held that the re-assessment proceedings had been initiated after a period of four ye…

Sneh Lata Dwivedi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 501/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ve that income had escaped assessment. Further the Explanation-2(a) to Section 147 is clearly applicable to the to the facts of the instant case under consideration. It may be mentioned that in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), it was held by the Apex Court that if the AO, for whatever reason, has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is a fact that no assessment was made earlier u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act in the case of the appellant, therefore, the ratio in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri St…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…y, this is a case where original return was accepted u/s. 143(1). While dealing with the subject of scope and effect of notice u/s. 147 as substituted with effect from 01-04- 1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) has held that under the substituted section of 147, existence of only the first condition i.e. 'Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment' is sufficient and 'if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason, has reason to believe that, income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the ass…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…y, this is a case where original return was accepted u/s. 143(1). While dealing with the subject of scope and effect of notice u/s. 147 as substituted with effect from 01-04- 1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) has held that under the substituted section of 147, existence of only the first condition i.e. 'Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment' is sufficient and 'if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason, has reason to believe that, income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the ass…

DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4768/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ed by the Assessing Officer were sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.,291 ITR 500(SC). 9.3 On this aspect of the matter, in our view, it is a settled position that even where a return is merely processed under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessment can be reopened under section 147 of the Act only subject to the 11 Matunga Gymkhana fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. In other words, even in such a situatio…

Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4468/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ed by the Assessing Officer were sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.,291 ITR 500(SC). 9.3 On this aspect of the matter, in our view, it is a settled position that even where a return is merely processed under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessment can be reopened under section 147 of the Act only subject to the 11 Matunga Gymkhana fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. In other words, even in such a situatio…

DDIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 1809/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ed by the Assessing Officer were sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.,291 ITR 500(SC). 9.3 On this aspect of the matter, in our view, it is a settled position that even where a return is merely processed under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessment can be reopened under section 147 of the Act only subject to the 11 Matunga Gymkhana fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. In other words, even in such a situatio…

Southern Auto Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2241/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2241/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Southern Auto Finance Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Company Circle Vi(3), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aagcs 1092 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2241/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s Southern Auto Finance Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of C/o Shri T.N. Seetharaman, v. Income Tax, Advocate, Company Circle VI(3), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 086. PAN : AAGCS 1092 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…, 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) 12 ITA No.7428/Mum/2013 & C.O. 99/Mum/2016 M/s Intel…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…, 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)…

ITO 17(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Varsha Pritam Rewari, Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 897/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer 17(3)(5) Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari Room No. 137, 1St Floor Flat No. 25, Cci Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai 400020 Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadpr9676G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: Shri Dhirendra Shah
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was made. However, even then, there must be "reason to believe", i.e., "cause or justification" that income had escaped assessment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst.CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd 291 ITR 500 (SC). The Hon'ble Court further held that the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings u/s 147 so long as the ingredients of the said section are fulfilled. 2.1.10 In the case of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V vs Orient Craft Ltd. on 12 December, 2012 ITA No.555/2012, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while deciding on the issue of validit…

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

…ke committed by the assessee or of their ignorance. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers., ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd's. (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC). Once the expenditure is found to be allowable as revenue expenditure as per provisions of the Act, the same are to be allowed as revenue expenditure under the Act while computing income chargeable to tax even if the tax-payer has given different treatment in its books of account by capitalizing the same in its books of account instead of de…

Sabyasachi Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 36(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1495/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri T. P. Kar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Dutta, JCIT., Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…in this matter, there is no scope for change of opinion since no information was recorded earlier as return has been processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) wherein it has been observed that intimation u/s. 143(1) is not an assessment , failure to issue notice u/s. 143(2) is not material and the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is valid, in this matter the AO reopened the matter u/s. 147 of the Act is perfectly valid and cannot be found fault with. 5.1. Adverting to the next aspect he submitted that…

ACIT, CC-44, Mumbai vs. Shilpa Sunil Majithia, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 5138/MUM/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1995-96
Section 268A

…the case of Shantikumar D. Majithia for AY 2001-02 (No. 026857, dated 30/3/2002, issued by the office of Jt. CIT, Ward 25(1), Mumbai). The same cannot be, as explained in by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), regarded as an assessment. The contention that there is no pending assessment, that would stand to abate, in these cases, thus, shall not hold. CO Nos. 69 to 72/Mum/2010 (A.Ys. 2001-02, 2003-04 & 2006-07) The assessee has before us relied on the decision in CIT vs. Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 2266 of 2013 dated…