Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO

130 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1981#378 most cited

What is Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

A mere charge of bogus expenses, without a specific finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, is insufficient to justify reassessment beyond four years under the first proviso to Section 147. Courts can examine the materiality and relevance of facts forming the 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment, ensuring it is based on reasonable grounds.

234

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · first proviso to section 147 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · material facts disclosure · bogus expenses · reassessment beyond four years · judicial review of reasons

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 133ASection 144

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentsection 148(2)kelvinatorlive linkmere change of opinionfresh tangible materialsection 151(1)sanctioning authoritybeyond four yearsincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C

…174) [Vol.- II] G) Reasons recorded are no valid reasons for issue of notice u/s 148. Mere receipt of information is no evidence to form belief of escapement of income. No live link / nexus between belief of escapement and material on record. Reliance on : i) 130 ITR 1 (SC) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO & Ors. (P- 175 – 184) (182) [Vol.- II] ii) 103 ITR 437 (SC) ITO vs Lakhmani Mewaldas (P- 124 - 134) (132, 133) [Vol.- III] iii) [2024] 164 taxmann.com 763 (Bombay) 6 Modern Living Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (P- 255 - 266) (266) [Vol.- IV] iv) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 219 (Bom.) B.U. Bhand…

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…edings initiated under section 147 of the Act are liable to be held as invalid and bad in law. 15. Reference in this regard may be made to following judgements: 16. It has been similarly held in the following decisions: - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 (SC) - Sheo Nath Singh vs. ACIT 82 ITR 148 (SC) - Biria VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj) - Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) 17. Reason to believe', it is submitted, cannot be equated with reason to suspect [refer Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd vx ACIT: 375 ITR 460 (Deli. GS P a g e | 10…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…iamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– to be a case where there was no reason to believe and there was suspicion only. It has been held on the various Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case of Ganga Saran & sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) that the court cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have wade with the Assessing Officer in coming to the belief but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under se…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…iamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– to be a case where there was no reason to believe and there was suspicion only. It has been held on the various Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case of Ganga Saran & sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) that the court cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have wade with the Assessing Officer in coming to the belief but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under se…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…iamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– to be a case where there was no reason to believe and there was suspicion only. It has been held on the various Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case of Ganga Saran & sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) that the court cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have wade with the Assessing Officer in coming to the belief but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under se…

ARYAN SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1) CHE, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2756/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Praveen Kumar BansalFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…en if there is foundation based on information there must be some reason warrant holding the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has to be kept in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) held that the expression "reason to believe" occurring in sec. 147 "is stronger" than the expression "if satisfied" and such requirement has to be met by the AO in the reasons recorded before usurping the jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. It must be kept in mind that information adverse against the assessee may trigger "reason to suspect" th…

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

…imed 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 Savla vs. ITO 130 taxmann.com.59 (Guj) Considering that i…

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

…imed 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 Savla vs. ITO 130 taxmann.com.59 (Guj) Considering that i…

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

…imed 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 Savla vs. ITO 130 taxmann.com.59 (Guj) Considering that i…

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

…imed 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 Savla vs. ITO 130 taxmann.com.59 (Guj) Considering that i…

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

…imed 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 Savla vs. ITO 130 taxmann.com.59 (Guj) Considering that i…

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, 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
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…well settled by judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court/High Courts in the 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]. \\\nj. 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…

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; (i) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors on 21.01.1971, (ii) Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (iii) S Narayanaappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (iv) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). ITA No.2467 to 2471/KOL/2024 Madina Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 4.4. The ld. AR also relied on the decision Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical approval is not valid and the reopening made based…

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; (i) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors on 21.01.1971, (ii) Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (iii) S Narayanaappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (iv) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). ITA No.2467 to 2471/KOL/2024 Madina Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 4.4. The ld. AR also relied on the decision Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical approval is not valid and the reopening made based…

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; (i) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors on 21.01.1971, (ii) Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (iii) S Narayanaappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (iv) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). ITA No.2467 to 2471/KOL/2024 Madina Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 4.4. The ld. AR also relied on the decision Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical approval is not valid and the reopening made based…

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; (i) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors on 21.01.1971, (ii) Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (iii) S Narayanaappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (iv) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). ITA No.2467 to 2471/KOL/2024 Madina Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 4.4. The ld. AR also relied on the decision Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical approval is not valid and the reopening made based…

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; (i) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors on 21.01.1971, (ii) Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (iii) S Narayanaappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) (iv) Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). ITA No.2467 to 2471/KOL/2024 Madina Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 4.4. The ld. AR also relied on the decision Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical approval is not valid and the reopening made based…

SHEETAL BATHLA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

…ght since inception till date, are “reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 3.2 The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief…

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…ce inception\ntill date, are “reason to believe\" and not \"reason to suspect\". The word\n“believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion.\nBelief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan&\nSons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das, (1976) 103\nITR 437 (SC).\n5.2The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the\nbelief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be\nreason to induce the belief. The Court can always examine this aspect\nthough the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the bel…

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…nce inception till date, are “reason\nto believe\" and not \"reason to suspect\". The word “believe” has to be understood in\ncontradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable.\nKindly refer Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. LakhmaniMewal\nDas, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC).\n4.2The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should\nnot be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the\nbelief. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of\nthe reasons for the bel…

Showing 1–20 of 234 · Page 1 of 12

...
Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO (130 ITR 1) — Cited in 234 Judgments | BharatTax