Which sections of the Income Tax Act does AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 139, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

Q: How many judgments cite AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner (197 Taxmann 177), spanning 2016 to 2025.

197 Taxmann 177High Court2011#1406 most cited

What is AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner authority for?

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment validity · reason to believe · specific information · third party information · investigation wing · application of mind · live link

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 106 third party information section 142(3)true and full disclosure section 114 live link preponderance of probability entry operator legal representative material facts necessary for assessment appeal before cit(a)reason to believe

Judgments citing AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, Ward-12(4), 17, 3Rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aabch2336L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…DR submitted that the AO has received some specific information and it was neither vague nor sanctity and therefore reopening is valid. Ld DR relied on the decision of honourable Delhi high court in AGR Investment Ltd.v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax 197 Taxmann 177, CONTEL MEDICARE SYSTEMS P. LTD.v.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 349 ITR 649 and of Honourable supreme court in RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS in 236 ITR 34. 5. Against this the ld AR of the appellant submitted that Para 1.2 Page 12 of the order of ld CIT(A) is elaborate on this issue and hence the reopening made by t…