Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

79 ITR 603Supreme Court of India1971#206 most cited

What is Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha authority for?

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

363

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons to believe · reopening assessment · fishing enquiries · roving enquiries · escapement of income · first proviso to Section 147 · failure to disclose material facts · sanction under Section 151

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 143(3)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 68Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)sanctioning authoritysection 151(2)sanction under section 151section 148(2)section 151(1)approval under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentsection 158bgfirst proviso to section 147live linksection 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…ed assessment, he should have relevant material before him from which he could have drawn such conclusion. His vague imagination that there might have been some escapement of income from assessment is not sufficient [CHHUGANMAL RAJPAL VS. S. P. CHALIHA (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)]. It is emphatically I.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Naveen Singh settled in this regard that there can be no doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Assessing Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspic…

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 101/1/2/1, B.T. Road, Bonhoogly, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700090, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5871A Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Counsel Of The Assessee Pressed Ground No.4, Which Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Not Being In Accordance With Law & Therefore, The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITO, Ward 9(1) Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 101/1/2/1, B.T. road, Bonhoogly, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700090, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACE5871A Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR Date of hearing: 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herein…

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur vs. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

The Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted

ITA/12/2024HC Uttarakhand17 Dec 2025

Bench: This Court Being Aggrieved By The Judgment & Order Dated 08.02.2024, Whereby The Appellate Tribunal Was Pleased To Allow The Appeal Of The Respondent. 3.

For Appellant: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
Section 133ASection 151

…IT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.)] C. Power granted u/s 151 cannot be exercised casually:- United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) D. CIT vs. Goyanka Lime 237 Taxman 378 (SC) CIT vs. N.C. Cables-98 CCH 18 (Del) E. Chuga Mal Rajpal- 79 ITR 603 (SC) Larger Bench.” 13. Per contra, the Revenue contended that the approval granted is in accordance with law. 14. The undisputed fact is that action was initiated by the A.O. under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the documents, i.e. LP 186 & 187 impounded during the course of the search & survey operations conducted against…

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…he case of (a) Sheonath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC); (b) ITO v. Lakhmani Mawal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); (c) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC); and(d) K. M. Bansal v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 247 (All); 79 ITR 603 [Chungamal Rajpal V/s S P Chellia]. \ j. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. G&G Pharma (2015) 384 ITR 147 (Del.), is squarely applicable since the Ld. AO had not applied his mind at the time of initiating the proceedings of reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. k. That,…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…the order dated 7.3.2024 u/s 270A of the Act and therefore the same is vitiated. 23. It is also well settled law that alleged approval is a mechanical approval is otherwise not a valid approval. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: SUPREME COURT 79 ITR 603 (SC) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S. P. Chaliha and Others ii) 237 Taxman 378 (SC) v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 335/2015 (Del) Pr. CIT vs M/s N.C. Cables Ltd. ii) 333 ITR 237 (Del) Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO 27 iii) 258 ITR 317 (Del) United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivast…

1.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kolkata vs. Anushreya Investment Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCA3658B Assessee by : Shri N.S. Saini, AR Revenue by : Shri Susanta Saha, DR Date of hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Boothnath Vintrade Private Limited

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITAT/297/2024HC Calcutta14 Nov 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 147Section 148

…ORDER OD-7 ITAT/297/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS. BOOTHNATH VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 14th November, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. … for Appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Kausheyo Roy, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. …for Respondent…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 vs. M/S. Believe Constructions P. Ltd

ITA/555/2025HC Delhi29 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Shivganesh Builders Pvt. Ltd

ITA/550/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Shine Star Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/549/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S. Believe Constructions P. Ltd

ITA/542/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, I vs. M/S. Bhudeva Estates P. Ltd

ITA/539/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Prrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Shine Star Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/540/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Sh. Gobind Kumar Goyal

ITA/544/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Shivgori Builders Pvt

ITA/536/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…taken a view that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner…