Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO

70 ITR 79Supreme Court of India1968#4070 most cited

What is Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO authority for?

The formation of a reasonable belief, not a conclusive finding of facts, is required at the reassessment stage. This belief must be honest and reasonable, based on grounds that are not mere suspicion but supported by direct or circumstantial evidence.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Agrawal vs ACIT · Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO · Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO · reason to believe · Section 147 · reassessment · honest and reasonable belief · direct or circumstantial evidence · formation of belief

Judgments citing Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…belief is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 2.5. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not o…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘डी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri. Mithalal D Mutha, Income Tax Officer, 8, Shop No.1, R.K.Building बनाम/ Ward 16(3)(1), Matru No.4, Khetwadi Lane, Mandir Building, Vs. MUMBAI – 400 004. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) PAN. No. AASPM9256A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ishwar P Rathi याजस्व की ओर से / Re…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…f is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 2.6. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 3.5. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ए’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘A’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT -9(1))(1), M/s Acon Measurement Pvt. Room no.260A, 02nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAACA5078K C.O. 112/Mum/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.4736/Mum/2015) Assessme…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

…belief is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 2.9. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. JCIT, C/o- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACM3525B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri K. K. Ved Shri Suman Kumar-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 28/12/201…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…belief is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudamani S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 2.8. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to believe which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6145/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., Ward 11(4), New Delhi 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 134/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 6145/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, Ward-11(4), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Sh. G.N. Gupta Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Dated 30.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2004-05. Cross Objections Have Also Been Filed By The Assessee In The Present Appeal. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., Ward 11(4), New Delhi 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, New Delhi (PAN: AAACM8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No. 134/Del/2014 (In ITA No. 6145/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, Ward-11(4), New Delhi New Delhi (PAN: AAACM8067A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sr. DR Assesse…