How many judgments cite Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT?

92 judgments on BharatTax cite Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT (117 Taxmann 12), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C, Section 147, Section 148, Section 68, Section 92CA.

Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT

117 Taxmann 12High Court2001#1234 most cited

What is Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT authority for?

The power to reopen assessments under the amended Section 147 is wide, requiring the Assessing Officer to have a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, based on prima facie or tangible material, even if the assessee fully disclosed material facts. This belief must be founded on existing reasons and information, with a rational connection to the escapement of income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT · reassessment section 147 · reopening of assessment · reason to believe · escaped assessment · tangible material · prima facie material · amended Section 147 · full and true disclosure · live link reasons to believe · 253 ITR 83 · Delhi High Court 2001

Also reported as

253 ITR 83

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 92CA

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 11(4)section 4a section 164(2)section 11(6)advancement of general public utility section 153(3)section 44bb section 13(2)section 11(4a)section 44b fresh tangible material

Judgments citing Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing and Celling Vs DCIT, System Pvt. Ltd., C/o Bhati Central Circle-II, Wadhwa & Co., CAs, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near MCF Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7152F Assessee by : Sh. K. C. Singhal, AR Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.01.2016 of ld. CI…

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…

Debottor Trust Estate of Rammohan Mullick, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 217/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 57

…ding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue.” In Bawa Abhai Singh"s case [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi), a Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High court clearly held that : "The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that the Assessing Officer must hold a belief . . . by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded and not me…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Canon India Private Ltd., Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4040/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4040/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Tower A & B, Cyber Income Tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Green, Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon , Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4175D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 10.06.2010 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not justified in reopening the assessment, as: 2 Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (a) this case has been reopened on the basis of audit objection and the jurisdictional High Court has upheld the reopening based on audit objection in the case of Bawa Abhi Singh Vs. DCIT 253 ITR 83. (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. P.V.S. Beadies Pvt.Ltd. 237 ITR 13 held that reopening on factual information provided by the internal auditor is valid. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs.53,15,240/- on account of unused capital subsidy ignoring that as per records the assessee had not o…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 115WSection 115w

…(iii) Siemens Information System Ltd. vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) (iv) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) (v) Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. JCIT [2000]-243 ITR 540 (Gau.) (vi) Bawa Abhai Singh vs. Dy. CIT [2002]-253 ITR 83 (Del.) And ultimately, prayed for upholding the order of the first appellate authority which was perfect and as per law. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records, orders of authorities below that the issue of contribution to superannuation fund was duly considered by the AO at the time…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, ITA Nos.4933 to 4938/Mum/2015 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2010-11 Shir Prakash Fatandas Income Tax Officer, Jassuja, Ward-3(2), बनाम/ M/s Fatandas Mangumal, Room No.3, B Wing, Vs. Mahatma Phule Market, Ashar IT Park, Road Nr. Old Municipal Office, No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Bhaji Market, Thane, Maharashtra Thane(W)-400601 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AEVPJ3440E Shri Devendra Jain "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…eding of reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue. In Bawa Abhai Singh"s case [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (D. K. Jain J.) is a Member, clearly held (page 88) : "The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that the Assessing Officer must hold a belief . . . by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reasons on…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

M/S. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy DIT (Int Tax) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3138/MUM/2008[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 1996-1997

For Appellant: Shri P.J.PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perumpurna

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC); G. Suresh vs. CIT 252 ITR 230 (Ker) and Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory vs. P.N. Prasad & Others 202 ITR 73 (Born). In fact, as noted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh vs. DCIT 253 ITR 83 and also in Rakesh Agarwal vs. ACIT 225 ITR 496, the provisions of section 147, as amended with effect from 01.04.1989, are contextually different and & ITA No.3138/08 the cumulative conditions spelt out in clauses (a) and (b) of section 147 prior to its amendment are not present in the amended provision. The only condition for action is that the…

M/S. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) RG. 0 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5459/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 1996-1997

For Appellant: Shri P.J.PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perumpurna

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/1232/2009HC Delhi18 Oct 2012

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…irability to go into the merits of the case.” 4. Before this Court, the Revenue’s counsel argued that even when full disclosure has been made, income can still be held to have escaped assessment. In this regard, he relied on Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT, 253 ITR 83 and Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj). 2012:DHC:6521-DB W.P.(C) 759/2013 Page 4 Counsel further submitted that the Proforma for obtaining the appr…

The Commissiner of Income Tax vs. Bhushan Kumar

ITA - 1135 / 2009HC Delhi07 Sept 2010

Section 143Section 148

…8, discussion contained in the last sub paragraph of para 7 qua this assessment year would not be valid. The observation of the Tribunal that in view of this judgment of the Jurisdictional Court in Bawa Abhai Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 253 ITR 83 is 2010:DHC:4393-DB aside the order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the assessment year 1995-06 is concerned. 4. We may state that we have not otherwise arrived at any finding as to whether judgment in Bawa Abhai Singh (supra) would be applicable or not. However, it is also necessary to record that learned counsel for the revenu…