Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT

139 ITR 1043High Court1983#14936 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT

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

…ing Officer towards possible escapement would not be a ground to permit reopening of completed assessment in defiance of statutory requirements. 21. In Paragraph-21, the Tribunal relied on the case of Ganga Prasad Maheshwari vs. CIT reported in (1983) 139 ITR 1043 (All) and followed the Hon’ble Apex Court’s exposition of law regarding “reason to believe”, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that before the Officer accepts a fact to exist, there must be justification for it and on the basis of the above discussion, concluded in Paragraph-22 2025:UHC:11294-DB 12 that the approval…

VIJAYSHREE FOOD PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…fication. It has to be based upon some material. Further the expression used in 147 is “has reason to believe” which does not 12 mean “has reason to suspect”. For the above proposition, he relied on the following judgments:- (i) Ganga Prasad Maheswari Vs CIT, 139 ITR 1043(AII); and (ii) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC). 9. In his next plank of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the AO must apply his mind to the information coming from outside and then entertain a belief that income has escaped ass…

INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR. 1 (2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 224/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ant material and reasons were formed in good faith. 4.4 As the formation of 'reason to believe' is a prerequisite to enable the AO to invoke S. 147, let us touch upon the meaning of this phrase. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Maheshwari, 139 ITR 1043 dissected the phrase and made some noteworthy observations. It noted that Reason means cause or justification whereas Believe means accept as 'true' or to have faith in it must have justification. The reasons recorded or the documents available must show nexus that in fact they are germane and relevant to the subjective opinion formed by the Ass…

MADAN MOHAN TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 29(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is an integral part of it, then it falls through and the court is empowered to strike it down. Belief may be 13 | P a g e subjective but reason is objective. ' Gangs Prasad Maheshwari & Others vs ClT - [(1983) 139 ITR 1043 (All.)] Mahesh Kumar Agrawal v. DCIT - [(2003) 180 GTR 517 (Cal.)]  No Reason to believe on suspicion, gossip or rumor There can be no manner of 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 cir…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…ing a quasi-judicial authority, is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. Belief may be subjective but reason has to be objective as held by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT (1983)139 ITR 1043: (1981) 21 CTR 83 (All.). The expression ‘reason to believe’ occurring in section 147 does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief [ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC)]. 1.2.4 Heart…

ITO, WARD-50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI TAPAS KUMAR MONDAL, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1960/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Ao & Cit-A. The Ao Without Considering The Same Added The Impugned Addition. The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Further Submits That The Cit-A Considering All The Material Available On Record Deleted The Said Addition. We Find That The Cit-A Discussed The Issue In Detail. Therefore, We Proceed To Hear The Case & Dispose Of The Same By Perusing The Material Available On Record.

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2010-11 The Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal Ward 50(2), Kolkata PAN: AELPM 1622F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: None appeared for AppellantRevenue Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, ld.AR for Assessee Date of hearing : 29-05-2017 Date of pronouncement : 29-05-2017 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dt: 30-07- 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), XXXII, Ko…

Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT (139 ITR 1043) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax