CGT v. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad)

242 ITR 176Reported decision#15411 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 144Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 119(2)(a)computer assisted scrutiny selectionsection 163section 66section 116substance over formsection 124(3)third party informationfull and true disclosuresection 124section 119(2)shell company

Judgments citing CGT v. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad)

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this state that prima facie there should be some element of belief which recording U/s.148.” 45. The AO further relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in 224 ITR 382, The Hon'ble Madras High Court in 242 ITR 176 and the Hon'ble P&H High Court in 242 ITR 554, wherein it has been held that even a letter from the DDIT (Inv.) constitutes information for the purposes of re-opening. We have examined the ITRs of the parties furnished before us vide paper book dated: 11.09.2025 page nos.188 to 191 and following information relevant to the matter emerged out of t…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this state that prima facie there should be some element of belief which recording U/s.148.” 45. The AO further relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in 224 ITR 382, The Hon'ble Madras High Court in 242 ITR 176 and the Hon'ble P&H High Court in 242 ITR 554, wherein it has been held that even a letter from the DDIT (Inv.) constitutes information for the purposes of re-opening. We have examined the ITRs of the parties furnished before us vide paper book dated: 11.09.2025 page nos.188 to 191 and following information relevant to the matter emerged out of t…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this state that prima facie there should be some element of belief which recording U/s.148. 45. The AO further relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in 224 ITR 382, The Hon'ble Madras High Court in 242 ITR 176 and the Hon'ble P&H High Court in 242 ITR 554, wherein it has been held that even a letter from the DDIT (Inv.) constitutes information for the purposes of re-opening. We have examined the ITRs of the parties furnished before us vide paper book dated: 11.09.2025 page nos.188 to 191 and following information relevant to the matter emerged out of t…

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ctorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 176 ii) ITO Vs. Gurinder Kuar (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189 iii) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 7 3.4 For acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. is required to have in his possession certain material or information on the basis of which he could prima-facie have rea…

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ctorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 176 ii) ITO Vs. Gurinder Kuar (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189 iii) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 7 3.4 For acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. is required to have in his possession certain material or information on the basis of which he could prima-facie have rea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

…unts by taking accommodation entry. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,220/- without appreciating the decisions of Hon. Supreme Court in 224 ITR 362, Hon. Madras High Court 242 ITR 176 and Hon. Punjab & Haryana High Court 2452 ITR 554 wherein it was held that even a letter from DDIT (Inv.) constitutes information for re-opening assessment. 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition without invoking provisions of section 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which empowers…

CGT v. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) (242 ITR 176) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax