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#5022 most cited

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

An assessment reopening notice under section 147 is invalid if the Assessing Officer merely seeks to investigate the source of funds without forming a belief, based on tangible material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The AO must independently apply their mind to arrive at such a belief, rather than mechanically issuing a notice based on external information.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah · 283 ITR 453 · Bombay High Court · section 147 · section 148 · reason to believe · tangible material · reopening assessment · escaped assessment · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 80hsection 148(2)section 80hhcsection 151(2)material facts necessary for assessmentsection 80hhsection 2(14)live linkborrowed satisfactionreason to believetangible materialreopening 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 (

Sapna Chauhan, Etawah vs. ITO, Etawah

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 137/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234B

…ions on the part of the Assessing Officer. He seems to be presuming that when the assessee had made purchase worth such huge amounts, he must disclose sizable income” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VsSmt. ManibenValji 17. Shah reported as (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.)found reopening to invalid in law where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) of Investment made in purchase of house was quashed. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the ld. AO merely wante…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cr 4, Mumbai vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Cc- 4(3) Central M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Range-4, Room No. 1921, Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Express Highway, Opp Sion Building, Nariman Point, Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.132/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 4(3) Central Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern Range-4, Room No. 1921, C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Express Highway, Opp Sion Vs. Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ithout group concern valuation cannot be suspected. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of NIVI Trading Ltd. vs. Union of India (278 CTR 219), CIT vs. Smt. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453 (Bom)], Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT [332 ITR 587(Bom)], Khubchandani Health parks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar vs. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293], Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Batra Bhatia Company [321 ITR 526], CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [354 ITR…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kargwal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross- objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M. Naveen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…A No. 1118/Mum/2014] dated M/s Kargwal Construction 5 ITA No. 7108/Mum/2016 & CO No. 75/Mum/2018 05.02.2016 (Mum-Trib), (vi) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT [285 ITR 26] (Bom.), (vii) C.M. Mahadeva v. CIT [404 ITR 747] (Karn.), (viii) CIT v. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453] (Bom.), (ix) CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company [220 CTR 531] (Del.), (x) Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar v. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293] (Guj.), (xi) Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322] (Bom.), (xii) Vodafone India Services Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [368 ITR 1] (Bom.). Reliance is also placed on CBDT’s Instruction No. 2/2015 [F…