CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd.

367 ITR 769High Court2014#6671 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 69ASection 11(5)Section 115BBC

Issues it is cited on

section 54esection 13(1)(c)(ii)section 115bbcanonymous donationsection 13(1)(b)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)fresh tangible materialsection 164kelvinatorsection 11(5)source of source

Judgments citing CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd.

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…order passed under section 147 rws 144B of the Act, it is evident that the Ld. AO did not carry out any enquiry/investigation/verification in respect of the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT. However, keeping in view the decisions in cases of Mehak Finvest P. Ltd. 367 ITR 769 (P & H) [SLP filed against this decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court], N. Govind Raju 60 taxmann.com 333 (Kar) and Majinder Singh Kang 25 Taxmann.com124 (P & H), we are of the considered view that the AO is legally competent to travel beyond the issues for which the assessment has been reopened under section 148 of the Act. Th…

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

…gh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can validly cover additional issues even if the original reason for reopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the Hon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make additions on other issues that come to notice during the reassessment. 2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgmen…

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

…ang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358\n(P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can\nvalidly cover additional issues even if the original reason for\nreopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT\nv. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the\nHon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue\nforming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered\nto make additions on other issues that come to notice during the\nreassessment.\n2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed\nthe Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the j…

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

…gh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can validly cover additional issues even if the original reason for reopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the Hon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make additions on other issues that come to notice during the reassessment. 2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgmen…

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

…ang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358\n(P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can\nvalidly cover additional issues even if the original reason for\nreopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT\nv. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the\nHon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue\nforming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered\nto make additions on other issues that come to notice during the\nreassessment.\n2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed\nthe Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the j…

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

…ang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358\n(P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can\nvalidly cover additional issues even if the original reason for\nreopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT\nv. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the\nHon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue\nforming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered\nto make additions on other issues that come to notice during the\nreassessment.\n14\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\n2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Sup…

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

…gh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can validly cover additional issues even if the original reason for reopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the Hon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make additions on other issues that come to notice during the reassessment. 2.4 It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgmen…

THE KATOHAR KHURD CO-OP AGRICULTURE SERVICE SCOIETY LIMITED,AMB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UNA

ITA 197/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.197/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) The Katohar Khurd Co-op Agriculture ITO- Una बनाम/ Service Society Limited Himachal Pradesh 174303 VPO Katohar Khurd, Tehsil Amb Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 177203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADAT-5771-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Bharat Poplani (CA) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईक…

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 411/ASR/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 69

…findings and Adjudication 5. So far as the legal ground as urged in additional grounds is concerned, we find that this legal issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mehak Finvest (P) Ltd. (367 ITR 769). The Hon’ble Court, considering Explanation-3 to Sec.147 (inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, retrospectively with effect from 01-04-1989), concurred that Ld. AO was empowered to make additions even on the ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued where during the reassessment proceedings, he concludes that some other…

ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI vs. AMARDEEP SINGH HIRA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 444/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The ITO, Vs Shri Amardeep Singh Hira, Mohali. House No. 1642, Sector 7, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFPH8242L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in app…

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…unction, then without there being any addition made with regard to such income for which reason had been given in the notice for reopening assessment, the second part cannot be invoked, but if it is not to be read in conjunction, the second part can be (2014) 367 ITR 769 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 invoked independently even without the reason for the first part to survive. The Court held that the two parts of the Section which had been joined with the words "and also", cannot be read as conjunctive but has to be read as disjunctive. 10. The earliest of the decisions on the point is in the case of Jet Airways. The…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…unction, then without there being any addition made with regard to such income for which reason had been given in the notice for reopening assessment, the second part cannot be invoked, but if it is not to be read in conjunction, the second part can be (2014) 367 ITR 769 (P&H) invoked independently even without the reason for the first part to survive. The Court held that the two parts of the Section which had been joined with the words "and also", cannot be read as conjunctive but has to be read as disjunctive. 10. The earliest of the decisions on the point is in the case of Jet Airways. The Hon'ble Division Ben…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…unction, then without there being any addition made with regard to such income for which reason had been given in the notice for reopening assessment, the second part cannot be invoked, but if it is not to be read in conjunction, the second part can be (2014) 367 ITR 769 (P&H) invoked independently even without the reason for the first part to survive. The Court held that the two parts of the Section which had been joined with the words "and also", cannot be read as conjunctive but has to be read as disjunctive. 10. The earliest of the decisions on the point is in the case of Jet Airways. The Hon'ble Division Ben…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…o such income for which reason had been given in the notice for reopening assessment, the second part cannot be invoked, but if it is not to be read in conjunction, the second part can be 21 (2014) 367 ITR 769 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 9 of 16 invoked independently even without the reason for the first part to survive. The Court held that the two parts of the Section which had been joined with the words “and also”, cannot be read as conjunctive but has to be read as disjunctive. 10. The earliest of the decisions on the point is in t…

PRAKASH RAMJI GAVALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2), THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 1087/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…t on the ground that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT [ (2012)344 ITR 358 (P&H)] and, as noted by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahak Finvest Pvt. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 769 (P&H)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed Special leave Petition against the said judgement. Learned CIT(A), in this background, has observed as follows:- Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 8 of 11 5.4 Hon'ble Court has dearly mentioned that since the SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court therefore the judgement of Hon'ble' Bombay High C…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

ITA/374/2014HC Karnataka27 Jul 2015

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 40A(3)

…ovindaraju – vs – Income Tax Officer) decided on 1.7.2015. In the said judgment, after considering the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 344 ITR 358 & CIT Vs Mehak Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 769 as well as the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT – Vs – Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 and several other judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it was held that :- Considering the provision of Section 147 as well as its Explanation 3, and also keeping in view that Section 147 is for the…

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

…20 been initiated, that the Assessing Officer can make additions on any other grounds on which the income has escaped assessment”. The same view was reiterated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mehak Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 769. In the said judgment, it was also noticed that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in the case of Majinder Singh (supra) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Circular No.5 of 2010 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) after the amendment of 2009, provided for the “Explanatory Notes to the Provisions…

CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. (367 ITR 769) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax