How many judgments cite Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO (411 ITR 207), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 133A.

Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO

411 ITR 207High Court2019#2512 most cited

What is Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO authority for?

For reassessment proceedings to be valid, especially after a return is merely processed under Section 143(1), the Assessing Officer must have a genuine "reason to believe" that income escaped assessment, based on correct facts and proper application of mind. If the assessee disputes the facts, the order on objections must address and establish their correctness, and sanction under Section 151 cannot be mechanical.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO · reassessment · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · processing under Section 143(1) · correct facts · application of mind · Section 151 sanction · mechanical approval · order on objections

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 133A Section 10(38)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets processing under section 143(1)section 149(1)(c)section 39 sanction under section 151 section 5(2)substantive assessment live link approval under section 151 non application of mind section 148(2)sanctioning authority

Judgments citing Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO

Jaee Vishwas Joshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodjaee Vishwas Joshi Vs. Acit,Circle-21(1) 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan 1002, Om Co-Op.Housing Society Limited Bkc M.B.Raut Road Mumbai-400 051 Shivaji Park, Dadar Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aelpa7074L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 147Section 148

…has made only allegations without any substantive basis or material in possession of the Ld. AO. In this regard, she had relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ankitha Choksi vs ITO (2009) (411 ITR 207). The assessee has also relied upon the following judicial precedents:- i) Prashanth S.Joshi vs CIT (2010) (324 ITR 154) ii) Plus Paper Food Pack Ltd. Vs ITO (2015) (374 ITR 485) (Bom.) iii) ACIT vs Dhariya Construction Company (supreme Court) iv) CIT (Delhi) vs Kelvinator of India (SC) v) Akshar Builders vs ACIT,28(1), dated 17/01/2019 (Bom.) v…

Ak Lumber Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8761/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/s A.K. Lumbers Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 92/4, WHS Block - 2 Circle 1(1) Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCA 6546 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 08.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 10.07.2020 Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Revenue by : Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With this appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of…

Palaparthy Srilakshmi, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 951/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri G.Kalyan Das, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Kiran Katta, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nt order itself gets nullified and the reassessment proceedings also have to be held as invalid. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ankita A.Choksey vs. ITO and others reported in 411 ITR 207 (Bom). ii. ITA 232/Pune (2015) in the case of Ulhas Shataram Ghosalkar vs. ITO- ITAT Pune Bench. iii. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani reported in 355 ITR 172 (Guj.). iv. Dr Devendra Gupta vs. ITO reported in 282 ITR (A.T.) 18 (ITAT)(Jodh.). v. Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Perla Krishna Rao vs. ITO and…

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…e reassessment notice was issued were not found to exist, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer did not get jurisdiction to make a reassessment.” 11.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bon.) held that “Condition precedent for issue of notice for reassessment is that the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment must be based on correct facts. Notice based on wrong facts is without jurisdiction and is to be quashed.” 40 ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Shri Devki Nandan Bindal, Delhi. 11.2. In the instant case, the Assessing…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…3 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. 11.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bon.) held that “Condition precedent for issue of notice for reassessment is that the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment must be based on correct facts. Notice based on wrong facts is without jurisdiction and is to be quashed.” 11.2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has recorded vague reasons based on wrong facts. Th…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C