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 367,164 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.

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.l497/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. Central Circle-18, RZ-D-5, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi - 110 045 New Delhi PAN No. AAKCS 1029 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Shri Parash Biswal, Adv. And Assessee by Shri Deepanshu Mehta, Adv. Shri Surender Pal, CIT-D.R. Revenue by Date of hearing: 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ; The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the R…

Sonal Snehal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1653/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the Assessing Officer after reproducing the information received from DDIT, (Investigation) Unit, drew the conclusion of escapement of income. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shahnaz Husain, vs. JCIT Special Range-10, W-61, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi - 110048 (PAN : AABPH4011P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/NFAC…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shahnaz Husain, vs. JCIT Special Range-10, W-61, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi - 110048 (PAN : AABPH4011P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/NFAC…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…sessment..." 5. It was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High court in Pankaj Hospital Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 44taxmann.com 230 that The expression 'reason', as the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 has held, means a cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has a cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment The Supreme Court has held that the expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should ha…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur, Income Tax Department vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. Rajendra Rajendra Prasad Prasad Gupta, Gupta, Income Tax, Central Cir Income Tax, Central Circle, 1/15, 1/15, Civil Civil Township, Township, Sambalpur Rourkela-769004 769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Abdpg 9284 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Padhi, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid and SudarshanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…o say that the assessment is completed. 10. Coming to the issue that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act is to be treated as assessment, we are unable to accept the same because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC) has categorically held that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act is not an assessment order. It may be a proforma assessment order as alleged by the ld.Sr. Advocate for the assessee but it is not an assessment order. Further, perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) in para 38(vii) goes on h…

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Aadhunik Infrastructure Development DCIT, Circle – 1, Jalgaon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Old Dhulia Road, Nimkhedi Khurd, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN: AAACJ4463B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 19-09-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2021 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi rela…

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…the Assessing Officer at that stage is required to form only a prima facie belief or opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" Here it would be worthwhile to mention that in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (Supreme Court). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2024 "All that is required for the Revenue to assume valid jurisdiction u/s 148 is the existence of cogent material that would lead a person of normal prudence, acting reasonably, to an honest belief as to the escapement of income from assessment." Also, in…

Deep Energy Resources Ltd. (Formerly Deep Industries Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of Ld

ITA 461/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…come has escaped assessment but not the established fact of escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Deep Energy Resources Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3– Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically stated that “reason to believe” does not mean that the reason for reopening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the reopening of an assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the challenge to reopening of assessment by holding that given the f…

Manjudevi Ranjitlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2932/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2932/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Manjudevi Ranjitlal Jain C/O CA Himanshu Gandhi, 16th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound Senepati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, ……………. Appellant Mumbai- 400013 PAN-ANHPJ3507H v/s Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1) Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai- 400703 Assessee by : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 07/08/2024 Date of Order – 28/08/2…

Preet International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpreet International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 240, Ff, Dda Office Complex Circle-20(1), Cycle Market, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco9321J Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less Preet International Pvt. Ltd any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case of reason to suspect' and not reason believe." 6.2 1…

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

…8...." UNQUOTE 26. In the Tenzing Match Works Case the Hon'ble HC had held as under QUOTE Para 4 "...There is no quarrel about the legal position as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of "ACIT -Vs- Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P.Ltd [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)", "CIT- Vs-Kelvinator India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)" and "Income-tax v. Zuari Estate Development &Investment Co.Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC)"..... Para 8 "....In the instant case, it is not in dispute that reopening is based upon the return of income filed by the assessee at the first instance. There is no allegation against the assessee…

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sis. In other words, at the point of time of initiating the reassessment proceedings, existence, and not adequacy of reasons, is 8 Sh. Padam Kumar Goyal vs. ITO material. This view is supported by the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), CARTIER SHIPPING CO. LTD. 40 DTR 459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Patel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), KR Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). I…

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

…belief. Whether the material would conclusively prove the escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. The Ld. CIT()A has also placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SE) wherein it was held that the only requirement to be fulfilled for issuing notice for reopening was that the AO must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reason to believe does not have to be final opinion that addition would certainly be made. Reliance was further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…19 (Guj.), Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta -vs.- CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 271 (P&H); Hon’ble Supreme Court 17 & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. judgment in the case of ACIT -vs.- Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Limited reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC); and others. 14. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Original assessment in the present case was passed under section 143(3) on 16.12.2015. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2013-14. The notice for reopening was issued to the assessee on 20.03.2020. In other words, it was issued aft…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…19 (Guj.), Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta -vs.- CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 271 (P&H); Hon’ble Supreme Court 17 & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. judgment in the case of ACIT -vs.- Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Limited reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC); and others. 14. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Original assessment in the present case was passed under section 143(3) on 16.12.2015. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2013-14. The notice for reopening was issued to the assessee on 20.03.2020. In other words, it was issued aft…

Pareshkumar Punamchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1096/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: CA Preyashi TatedFor Respondent: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

…t the stage of reopening prima-facie belief of the AO based on material on record that income has escaped assessment.Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited , (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC). Thus, I uphold reopening of the assessment by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147. The cash stood deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee did not denied that the bank account did not belong to the assessee nor any denial is there that cash was not deposited by the assessee. The onus is on the assessee to explain…

Gorlas Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…facts that the return filed by the assessee had been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and no assessment had been done u/s 143(3) of the Act. Under the similar issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 held that an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be equated with an assessment and hence, there is no question of a change of opinion, when no opinion was formed at the time of issuing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Hence respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker…

DCIT, Gurugram vs. Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat

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

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…ent to S. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Prior to the amendment of S. 147, there was no provision equivalent to cl. (b) of Expln. 2 in the amended S. 147. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) it has been held that so long as the ingredients of S. 147 are fulfilled, the AO is free to initiate proceeding u/s.147 and failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s.143(1) had been issued. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of IT…

Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…ent to S. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Prior to the amendment of S. 147, there was no provision equivalent to cl. (b) of Expln. 2 in the amended S. 147. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) it has been held that so long as the ingredients of S. 147 are fulfilled, the AO is free to initiate proceeding u/s.147 and failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s.143(1) had been issued. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of IT…