Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT

335 ITR 234High Court2011#6781 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 11Section 115BBCSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 151Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 54esection 115bbcanonymous donationfresh tangible materialsection 55(2)section 139(9)section 49kelvinatorsection 55going concernvaluation of sharessource of source

Judgments citing Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…ed only on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground, material or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. ITO [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201 Taxman 154 (Mag.) (Guj). 8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.” 21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, order dated 06.02.2015 where the Tribunal on findin…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…nly on the basis of reasons recorded by the\nAssessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground,\nmaterial or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be\nmade to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan\nDevelopers v. ΙΤΟ [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201\nТахтап 154 (Mag.) (Guj).\n8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed.\nPetition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.\"\n21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench,\nMumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT\nITA No.2636/M/2013, order dated 06.02.2015 where the\nTribunal on f…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…ed only on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground, material or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. ITO [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201 Taxman 154 (Mag.) (Guj). 8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.” 21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, order dated 06.02.2015 where the Tribunal on findin…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…nly on the basis of reasons recorded by the\nAssessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground,\nmaterial or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be\nmade to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan\nDevelopers v. ΙΤΟ [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201\nТахтап 154 (Mag.) (Guj).\n8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed.\nPetition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.\"\n21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench,\nMumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT\nITA No.2636/M/2013, order dated 06.02.2015 where the\nTribunal on f…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…nly on the basis of reasons recorded by the\nAssessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground,\nmaterial or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be\nmade to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan\nDevelopers v. ΙΤΟ [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201\nТахтап 154 (Mag.) (Guj).\n8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed.\nPetition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.\"\n28\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\n21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench,\nMumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT\…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…ed only on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and not with the help of extraneous ground, material or possible improvement. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. ITO [2011] 335 ITR 234/10 taxmann.com 226/201 Taxman 154 (Mag.) (Guj). 8. Under the circumstances, notice dated 25.3.2014 is quashed. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.” 21. We also take note of the judgment of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, order dated 06.02.2015 where the Tribunal on findin…

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e extraneous material to support his action. Reference in this respect can be\nITA NO.616/JPR/2024\nTIJARIA POLYPIPES LTD VS DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\nmade to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. Income-tax\nOfficer, reported in [2011] 335 ITR 234 (Guj)\"\n1. In the judgement in the case of Principal CIT vs. Paramount Communication\nPvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has held as\nunder-\n\"8......... While it is true that the court is conscious that the reassessment notice\nshould not have been routinely issued, at the same time, the nature of power is\nwide…

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…or the Assessing Officer to improve upon such reasons or to rely upon some extraneous material to support his action. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers. Income-tax Officer, reported in (2011) 335 ITR 234 (Gujj." (viii) It is to be noted that the AO had material before him for formation of reasonable belief of escapement which had live nexus with the material in his possession for assuming the valid jurisdiction for reopening u/s. 147. There is difference between reason to believe and reason to suspect. The former is based on some tangible materi…

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

ITA 59/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…Assessing Officer to improve upon such reasons\nor to rely upon some extraneous material to support his\naction. Reference in this respect can be made to the\ndecision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers\nvs Income Tax Officer, reported in (2011) 335 ITR 234\n(Guj).\"\n4.4 It is observed that the AO has provided all the details,\nthe appellant has attended the re-assessment proceedings\nfrom time to time and has filed the details as sought by\nthe AO. It is also observed that the appellant has never\npursued the alleged objection filed against the notice u/s\n148 of the Act before the AO. Therefore o…

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…the Assessing Officer to improve upon such reasons or to rely upon some extraneous material to support his action. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers vs Income Tax Officer, reported in (2011) 335 ITR 234 (Guj).’’ 4.4 It is observed that the AO has provided all the details, the appellant has attended the re-assessment proceedings from time to time and has filed the details as sought by the AO. It is also observed that the appellant has never pursued the alleged objection filed against the notice u/s 148 of the Act before the AO. Therefore once the…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Sneha Joshi [2013] 214 Taxman 183 (Bombay) VI. N.D. Bhatt IAC vs. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 HC (Gujarat) IX. Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 HC (Gujarat) X. Jamna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461(A11) 40. He submitted that in the order of re-assessment, the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,43,09,048/- by way of capital gain which was not the ground for the reopening of the assessment, as such, addition made of the said sum is unsustainable in law. For the above proposition he relied…

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…m Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corporation vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 194 (Bom.), Anil Radha Krishnawani vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 564 (Bom.), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.). The whole case in the present appeal pertains to disallowance u/s 40(A)(ia) of the Act, which pertains to alleged non-payment of tax deducted at source within the time presc…

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…m Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corporation vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 194 (Bom.), Anil Radha Krishnawani vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 564 (Bom.), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.). The whole case in the present appeal pertains to disallowance u/s 40(A)(ia) of the Act, which pertains to alleged non-payment of tax deducted at source within the time presc…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…n’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corporation vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 194 (Bom.), Anil Radha Krishnawani vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 564 (Bom.), Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 333 ITR 483 (Guj.), Aayojan Developers vs ITO 335 ITR 234 (Guj.), CIT vs PI & IC Corporation of UP Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 (All.), SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.), thus, considering the totality of facts and the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judicial decisions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal o…