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 366,470 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

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…pplication of mind. The amount given in the AIR information can arouse suspicion that income has escaped assessment, but the same cannot be a reason to believe that income mentioned therein has escaped assessment. In Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1, the Apex Court has stated that the words and the phrase used, "has reason to believe", and in the first part of Section 147 of the Act were stronger than the word "satisfied". The belief entertained by the assessing authority must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable, I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 14 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 or…

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…pplication of mind. The amount given in the AIR information can arouse suspicion that income has escaped assessment, but the same cannot be a reason to believe that income mentioned therein has escaped assessment. In Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1, the Apex Court has stated that the words and the phrase used, "has reason to believe", and in the first part of Section 147 of the Act were stronger than the word "satisfied". The belief entertained by the assessing authority must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable, I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 14 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 or…

Smt. Bani Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…pplication of mind. The amount given in the AIR information can arouse suspicion that income has escaped assessment, but the same cannot be a reason to believe that income mentioned therein has escaped assessment. In Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1, the Apex Court has stated that the words and the phrase used, "has reason to believe", and in the first part of Section 147 of the Act were stronger than the word "satisfied". The belief entertained by the assessing authority must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable, I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 14 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 or…

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Smt. Saroj Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1345/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…l 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. v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but his/her belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The ld. AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason fo…

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…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. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2 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 bel…

Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4685/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4685/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit Circle- 2(3)(2) 16, Ashoka Shopping Centre, Room No. 552, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan Crawford Market Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs9189D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sunil Lalchandani Revenue By: Shri. Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement; 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri. Mahender Ahuja
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4685/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ ACIT Circle- 2(3)(2) 16, Ashoka Shopping Centre, Room No. 552, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan Crawford Market Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECS9189D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sunil Lalchandani Revenue by: Shri. Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncemen…

M/S Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 107/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Suryamukhi Vintrade Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata 37/2, Chinar Park New Town Hatiara Rajarhat Main Road Kolkata - 7000157 Pan : Aaecs0373H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 26 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Reopening U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Pravesh Advani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…. When there is “reason to suspect” then AO to make a reasonable enquiry and collect material which would make him belief, that there is in fact an escapement of income. It is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) that the expression “reason to believe” the expression in section 147 ‘is stronger” then the expression “is satisfied”. Therefore the AO has to record his reason to believe escapement of income and if he intends to reopen an assessment which has been framed earlier u/s 143(3) after the expiry of four (4) years from the end of the relevant asse…

Twenty First Century Management Services Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 860/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 860/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009 - 10 Twenty First Century The Acit, Management Services Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), G3 No.67, Eldams Road, Chennai Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaact 2397L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, In Ita No.404(T)/Cit(A)-7/2016-17 Dated 21.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 28.06.2016. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 169 Days. This Appeal Was Filed Before Tribunal Only On 26.10.2020 & As Per Form 36, The Order Of Cit(A) Was Received On 11.03.2020. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Spread Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Nationwide Lockdown Imposed By The Government From 25.03.2020. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 Vide Order Dated 23.03.2020 Has Given Directions That The Delay Are To Be Condoned During This Period 15.03.2020 To 14.03.2021 & They Have Condoned The Delay Up To 28.02.2022 In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022. In Term Of The Directions Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Condone The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 47

…AO must have "reasons to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The important words in section 47 are "has reason to believe" and these words are stranger than the words "is unsatisfied" (Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). There must exist reasons for holding a belief of escapment of income. It is open to the assesseee to establish that there infact existed no belief or that the belief was not a bonafide one or was based on non-specified information. Phoolchand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO 919930 203 ITR 456 (SC). In my considered view the AO has sufficient "reason to be…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…has held as under: “reason to believe is not the same thing as reason to suspect. The Apex court reiterated its view expressed in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v AAC, 82 ITR 147”. p. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO and Others [130 ITR 1] has reiterated that : “It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income- tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 147(a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and, secondly, he must have rea…

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…56. iv) Birla VXL Ltd v CIT, reported in 217 ITR Pg. 1. v) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ChhugamalRajpalVs. S.P.Chaliha and other, reported in 79 ITR 603. vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO & Others, reported in 130 ITR 1. vii) M/s. WEL Intertrade (P) Ltd and Another Vs. ITO, reported in 308 ITR 22(Delhi). viii)CIT Vs. Dr. N. TippaSetty in ITA No. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002, reported in 322 ITR 525 (Karn), wherein all the decisions have been considered and held that there is no reason to believe. ix) In view of the foregoing decisions of various Courts the appellant wis…

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…56. iv) Birla VXL Ltd v CIT, reported in 217 ITR Pg. 1. v) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ChhugamalRajpalVs. S.P.Chaliha and other, reported in 79 ITR 603. vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO & Others, reported in 130 ITR 1. vii) M/s. WEL Intertrade (P) Ltd and Another Vs. ITO, reported in 308 ITR 22(Delhi). viii)CIT Vs. Dr. N. TippaSetty in ITA No. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002, reported in 322 ITR 525 (Karn), wherein all the decisions have been considered and held that there is no reason to believe. ix) In view of the foregoing decisions of various Courts the appellant wis…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…he reasons recorded and material, based on which the reassessment proceedings are to be initiated. He placed reliance on the following decision in support of this contention: 1. M/s. Calcutta Discount Co., reported in 41 ITR 191 [SC] 2. Gangasaran reported in 130 ITR 1 3. Chuharmal Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603 [SC] 4. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 [SC] 5. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 552 & 553/Bang/2018 by order dt. 16.10.2020. Page 7 of 17 10. On the other hand, Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, the authority below was justified in reopening the assessment as assessee had incu…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…asons on which the belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief may not be based merely on reasons but it must be founded on information. As was observed in Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC), the expression "reason to believe" is stronger than the expression "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. in S.Narayanappa v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219, it was noted by the apex court that…