Ajit Jain v. Union of India

242 ITR 302High Court2000#8354 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

warrant of authorisationincome escaping assessmentreason to believetangible materialescapement of incomesection 151income-tax officerreopening of assessmentsection 133asection 131reassessment proceedingsundisclosed income

Judgments citing Ajit Jain v. Union of India

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

ITA 182/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 255(4)

…authorization issued under\nsection 132 and all further actions/proceedings in consequence\nthereof, including the block assessment, were quashed. We see no\nreason to interfere with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ajit\nJain v. Union of India [2000] 242 ITR 302. Accordingly, the civil\nappeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”\n(ii) CIT v. Parmar Builders & Developers [2015] 62\ntaxmann.com 20 (Guj.):\n:…it was a case of survey and there was no search of the premises\nof the assessee under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Whatever\nthe material was collected, was/were during the cours…

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…nstitute information for forming any adverse belief against an assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ajit Jain and Another 260 ITR 80 (SC) affirmedthe order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain vs Union of India reported in 242 ITR 302 (Del) holding so.The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court in this regard are as under: “14. It is in the light of the above principles of law that we take up the question whether the intimation given by the CBI to respondent No. 5 would constitute 'information' and could it be said to be relevant for formation of the belief that the money…

THE ITO, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…nstitute information for forming any adverse belief against an assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ajit Jain and Another 260 ITR 80 (SC) affirmedthe order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain vs Union of India reported in 242 ITR 302 (Del) holding so.The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court in this regard are as under: “14. It is in the light of the above principles of law that we take up the question whether the intimation given by the CBI to respondent No. 5 would constitute 'information' and could it be said to be relevant for formation of the belief that the money…

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…ny statutes such as in the case of reassessment of Income under the Act or its predecessor statute, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as well as in respect of action of the Revenue in the matter of 9 (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) 10 (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) 11 (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.) 12 (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Telangana) 13 (1991) SCC OnLine Del. 584 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del.) 14 (1995) 215 ITR 234 (P&H) 11 search and seizure. 13. In S. Narayanappa v. CIT,15 a case of re-assessment for the reason that income had escaped assessment, this Court held the Revenue mus…

M/S. MAHENDRA AUTO SERVICES (DEEMED AOP),,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 810/PUN/2016[BP: 1988-89 to 10/07/1997]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Block Period : 1988-89 To 10.07.1997 Mahendra Auto Services (Aop), The Assistant Commissioner C/O.Gopinath Manohar Wadi, 29, Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vaibhav Road, Dhule-424001. Dhule. Pan: Aaaam 6249 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022

Section 158Section 158B

…e undisclosed income of that person shall be assessed in accordance with Chapter XIVB of the Act. A search is a pre-request for the initiation of block assessment proceedings as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ajit Jain v. Union of India and Ors., 242 ITR 302, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 260 ITR 80. In the case of CIT v. Ms. Pushpa Rani (2004) 136 Taxman 627, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that if there is no search warrant 9. It, therefore, appears to us be a correct position that the block assessment in the present case is void ab initio since there was no warrant of ITA No.810/PUN/2016…

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

…belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search and as a necessary corollary in such a case ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of…

MADAN MOHAN TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 29(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…o believe’ means that a. reasonable man, under the circumstances, would form a belief which will impel him to take action under the law. The formation of opinion has to be in good faith and not on mere pretence. Ajit Jain v. Union of India and Others [(2000) 242 ITR 302 (Delhi)]  Reason to believe’ must be on substantial or tangible material The careful selection of these words by the statute and the drastic nature of the powers necessarily point to a judicial application of the mind to some substantial material by the officer acting with a sense of responsibility. It would also postulate that information in p…

M/S MOOLCHAND KUMAWAT & SONS,BEAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1013/JPR/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 158BSection 240

…CIT and others (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay) 3. S. R. Koshti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Gujarat) 4. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and others (1997) 226 ITR 475 (Allahabad) 5. Ajit Jain Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) 6. CIT & Dy. CIT (Inv.) Vs. N. R. Sudhir ITA No. 202/2009 Dt. 17/11/2014 (Karnataka) The assessee has submitted that if after passing of an assessment under chapter XIV-B the assessee challenges the entire proceedings on the ground that the 7 M/s. Moolchand Kumarwat & Sons, Beawar. proceedings initiated are without jurisdiction and the…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search and as a necessary corollary in such a case Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the apex court in Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 (SC). The Delhi High…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search and as a necessary corollary in such a case Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the apex court in Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 (SC). The Delhi High…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search and as a necessary corollary in such a case Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the apex court in Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 (SC). The Delhi High…

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search and as a necessary corollary in such a case Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the apex court in Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 (SC). The Delhi High…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Hyderabad Race Club,

ITTA/312/2013HC Telangana30 Jul 2013

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940 ITA.No. 246 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 331/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 24-05-2013 APPELLANT/S: RAJAN JEWELLARY KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.02.2019, ALO…

Ajit Jain v. Union of India (242 ITR 302) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax