Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India (

283 ITR 453High Court2006#5103 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 80h section 148(2)section 80hhc section 151(2)material facts necessary for assessment section 80hh section 2(14)live link borrowed satisfaction reason to believe tangible material reopening of assessment

Judgments citing Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India (

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…erial' and formation of reason to\nbelieve that income had escaped assessment and consequently, reassessment\nwas unjustified-Held, yes [Para 13] [in favour of assessee)\"\n\nPage | 15\n\n18\nITA No.2695/KOL/2024\n\nPage\n12.18 CIT v. ManibenVeiji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.)(High Court)\nThe AO has mechanically issued notice u's.148 of the Act, on the basis of information\nallegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi,\nAO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has\nreason to believe that income has escaped during the year.\n12.19 H…

ANNU ANIL AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…and reason to suspect. Reliance is placed on the following judgements: a. Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bombay High Court)] b. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bombay High Court)] с. CIT v. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 [(Bombay High Court) d. Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bombay High Court) P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2011-12 Annu Anil Agrawal 16. Therefore, in the view of the above facts and circumstances, the ground Nos. 1 & 2 stands allowed, and notice under 148 of the Act stands quashed. 17. Ground No. 3: This ground raised by the assessee relates to chall…

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…are returning a higher income. The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 147 on the basis of suspicions and presumptions cannot be sustained. Similarly assessment cannot be reopened merely to verify discrepancy. 1.2 In CIT v. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.)(HC). It was observed that Assessing Officer wanted to inquire about source of funds of an immovable property purchased by assessee. No reason to issue notice for reassessment. 1.3 In Banke Bihar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITA NO. 5128/M/2015 dt. 22/04/2016) (Delhi) (Trib.); The Assessing Officer has mechanically issued notice under secti…

TULSHI DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO,WD-11(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…as not founded on the belief that any income which was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, hence, such verification was necessary. That belief was not recorded. The notice of reassessment was not valid.” (e) In the case of CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom)the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 to scrutinize the investment made in the flat purchased is not valid as the AO only seeks to find out the source of funds and same does not constitute any reason for belief that income has escaped assessment so as to invoke section 148 of the Act and ac…

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification and examination of purchases is bad in law and so is the consequent assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.…

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…ine in the case of appellant. v] That at the time of survey neither any incrementing material nor any evidence found which shows any business transaction executed by appellant outside the books of accounts. i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. 16 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…ht perspective and judicious manner and issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act which is not only against the principle of natural justice but also against the law settled by Hon'ble Courts in following cases: - i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO mer…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

MANOJ KUMAR,REWARI vs. ITO WARD-2, REWRI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9011/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…s which were the basis for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance on various case laws as under: - Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 (ITAT) Delhi; - CIT Vs. Smt. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.); - Smt. Kantamani Venkata Satyavathi Vs. ITO (1967) 64 ITR 516 (AP); - ITO Vs. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 410 (Cal.); - Smt. Munni Devi Vs. ITO Ward-2, Rewari (ITAT New Delhi); - CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.); - Bharat Singh Vs. ITO ward-2, Rewari, ITAT-Delhi dt. 23.5.2022 Therefore, he prayed that…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded and therefore the reopening is bad in law. It is needless to mention that the reason are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO and no substitution or deletion…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEY TECH, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…urt in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Bom) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the judgments mentioned supra, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification of facts/information received from DIT(Inv.), Mumbai, is bad in law…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANHATTAN IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R

Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…se of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) (Bombay HC) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi HC) 8. Swatik Safe Deposit & Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (265 Taxman 164) (Bombay HC) 7 M/s. Manhattan Impex Pvt. Ltd. 9. NuPower Renewable Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT WPNo.3618 of 2018 dated 07.03.2019 (Bombay HC) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the A…

SMT. MEERA DEVI, ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…tled law that reopening of assessment is not permitted for verification purposes, for example: for verification of source of investment in property or cash deposit in bank account. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Maniben Valji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that AO cannot reopen assessment u/s 147 for verification of source of purchase of flat by the assessee as there is no reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment. Copy of the judgment is submitted herewith at paper book page no. 36 to 38, relevant para no. 8 at page no. 38, which is also…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 584/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 584/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Vijay Kumar, The ITO, Vs. 300, Gurunanak Pura, Ward-4(1), Raja Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BOIPK 0889 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Meena…

IM.MEDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S.SARASWATHI MEDIA PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…e of Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) 5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) 6. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) 7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification of facts/information received from DIT(Inl.), New Delh…

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 324/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…/s 147 / 148 of the Act, however, before completion or at the time of completion of assessment, he probably was convinced that on those issues there has been no escapement of assessed income. That further, in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Maniben Valji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom), it was held that the important words in section 147 of the Act are “has reason to believe” and these words are stronger than the words “is satisfied”. The belief entertained by the Income Tax Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. Tha…

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 320/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 148Section 151

…the impugned assessment year. Such vague reasons without the application of mind cannot give rise to acquisition or jurisdiction by the ld. AO for the reassessment and therefore same are directed to be quashed.” In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the 26. Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the A…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2