ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437Supreme Court of India1976#70 most cited

What is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das authority for?

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

721

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment · escaped income · failure to disclose material facts · live link · beyond four years · material facts · bogus claim

Also reported as

2 SCC 302153 Taxmann 282

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 250Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 147(a)section 158basection 150true and full disclosurelive linkunexplained jewellerysection 148(2)beyond four years

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

Shri Deepak Budharmal Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above, and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 161/AHD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…. He also submitted that he has nothing to do with plot no. 33A referred to in the reasons and the same belongs to Parth Bopal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and not him. Referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437), the assessee highlighted the need for live link between material and belief so as to justify the reopening and the fact that an application was also filed seeking relevant information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The assessee thus vehemently objected to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Vide order dated 10th June 2…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of Assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2144/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aaacl-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aaacl-5419R ( Cross Objector ) ( Department )

For Appellant: S/Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43(1)(a)Section 68

…r pages 6­8 of C1T(A)'s order). 4. Vagueness in respect of Reasons to believe on the part of the AO (refer page 8 of C1T (A)'s order). The assessee­company relied mainly on the following judgements to buttress its arguments :­­ 1. ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437) 2. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs ITO (20 taxmann.com 797) 3. PCIT­6 vs Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 300) 4. CIT­V vs Orient Craft Ltd ( 354 ITR 536) 5. PCIT vs. Tupperware India P. Ltd. (236 Taxman 494) At the outset, the aforesaid arguments of the assessee are rebutted as below :­­­ 1. Now, on perusal of the assessment records sen…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…fficer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. The aforesaid submission of the appellant is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437 wherein at page 448, their Lordships have held as under: “As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax…

Anjan Kumar Naha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2381/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 Assessment Years :2009-10 to 2011-12 Anjan Kumar Naha V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o D.J. Shah & Co. Ward-44(1), 3, Kalyan Bhavan 2, Elgin Government Place Road, Kolkata-700020 West, Kolkata- [PAN No.ABTPN 2458 B] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/…

Anjan Kumar Naha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2380/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 Assessment Years :2009-10 to 2011-12 Anjan Kumar Naha V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o D.J. Shah & Co. Ward-44(1), 3, Kalyan Bhavan 2, Elgin Government Place Road, Kolkata-700020 West, Kolkata- [PAN No.ABTPN 2458 B] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/…

Anjan Kumar Naha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2379/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 Assessment Years :2009-10 to 2011-12 Anjan Kumar Naha V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o D.J. Shah & Co. Ward-44(1), 3, Kalyan Bhavan 2, Elgin Government Place Road, Kolkata-700020 West, Kolkata- [PAN No.ABTPN 2458 B] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai vs. Abani Sarbeswar Das, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 232/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…received from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the creditors were engaged in issuing accommodation entries. In support of his contention, the learned AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 96 DTR 299, wherein it has been held that there was a clear lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Once the assessee had furnished all the material including PAN, loan confirmations and bank statements, in such an eventuality, no…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai vs. Abani Sarbeswar Das, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…received from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the creditors were engaged in issuing accommodation entries. In support of his contention, the learned AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 96 DTR 299, wherein it has been held that there was a clear lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Once the assessee had furnished all the material including PAN, loan confirmations and bank statements, in such an eventuality, no…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…ble from that material should tantamount to a mere change of opinion, which cannot, according to the petitioner, constitute a valid ground for reassessment. 6.22 The appellant has also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437 (SC). It may be noted that this decision has already been considered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd (supra). 6.23 In the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited (supra) cited by the appellant, the AO ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013 reopened the assessment of AY 2003-04, which was earlier comp…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7325/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…ble from that material should tantamount to a mere change of opinion, which cannot, according to the petitioner, constitute a valid ground for reassessment. 6.22 The appellant has also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437 (SC). It may be noted that this decision has already been considered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd (supra). 6.23 In the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited (supra) cited by the appellant, the AO ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013 reopened the assessment of AY 2003-04, which was earlier comp…

ACIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Navkar Nivesh Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 729/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2007-08 Acit, Circle-5(2), V/S. M/S Navkar Nivesh Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., (Formerly M/S Pingle Chowringhe Square, 8Th Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., 81, Floor, Kolkata-69 Metcalf Street, Kolkata-700 013 [Pan No.Aabcp 4879 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 23-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed In Case No.2412/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Cit-Dr Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Both In Annulling The Impugned Assessment / Re-Assessment Dated 31.03.2015 Framed On U/S 144/147/143(3) As Well As In Deleting The Unexplained Share Application / Premium Addition Amounting To ₹54,72,75,000/- Made In Assessment Order On Merits. His Argument Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Taken Recourse To Impugned

Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 68

…729/Kol/2017 A.Y.2007-08 ACIT Cir-5(2), Kol. Vs. M/s Navkar Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is useful to bear in mind the following observations made by Hori'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437], “the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing & on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of this belief that there has been escapement of the income of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Jaico Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, Of Income Tax, 37Th B Cross, Vs. 28Th Main, 9Th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan: Aabcj8421G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 68

…ion isbased on "reason to believe" and not 'reason to suspect" i) CIT V. Jeskaran huvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128 (AP) ii) N. Sundareswaram V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker) iii) Smt. Hemlata Agarwal V. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) iv) ITO V. Lakshmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) v) India Finance & Construction Co., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom) 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 348 (Delhi), wherein it is held th…

Sri Udit Kumar Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…bserved by the Supreme Court In S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, that it is open to examine whether the reason to believe has rational connection with the formation of the belief. To the same effect, the Apex Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have 10 Shri Udit Kumar Dugar, AY 2012-13 rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of belief i.e. there must be a live link between material coming the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. If the aforesaid requirement are not…

Rinamkumar A. Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed on legal ground

ITA 172/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…o. 172/AHD/2017/A.Y.07-08 Page 3 of 12 was issued mechanically to make roving enquiries without any reason to believe, hence same is liable to be quashed in the light of decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO & Ors v. Lakshmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) wherein it was held that the powers of ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of statute are “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. The fact that the AO has mentioned different figures in show-cause notice and suddenly made addition of different figure at the time of assessment order without giving an…

Chirag Bharambhai Masani, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2260/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2260/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nd Co. (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom.). Thus ‘reason to believe’ is of higher pedestal and requires fulfillment of strictier test. The ‘belief’ cannot be a mere pretense nor can it be a mere doubt or suspicion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) also underscored the fact that the words of the statute are ‘reasons to believe’ and not ‘reason to suspect’. The vague feeling or suspicion of the AO towards possible escapement ITA No. 2260/Ahd/18 [Chirag B. Masani vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - would not permit him to reopen a completed/ time barred assessment in defiance of the statutory…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5712/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…ves cannot be stated to be beliefs, which would be an obvious self-contradiction. 11. The entire law as to what would constitute "reason to believe" was summed up by H.R.Khanna, J, speaking for the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v LakhmaniMewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:- (a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. (b) The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finality of a judicial or qua…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…r view has been taken by the apex court in the following cases :— (/) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO 203 ITR 456, 477; (//) ALA Firm v. CIT 189 ITR 285, 298; (Hi) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. C/7119 ITR 996, 1004; and (/V) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 445. 5.2.7 In view of the above unambiguous view of judicial authorities with regard to discovery of new material facts, I do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant for this ground of appeal. Therefore, reopening of assessment is sustained and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.3.4 The above facts have been considered by me. It…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…of the learned AR of the assessee that the AO has recorded reasons based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in t…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…of the learned AR of the assessee that the AO has recorded reasons based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in t…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…of the learned AR of the assessee that the AO has recorded reasons based on ‘reasons to suspect’ and not on ‘reasons to believe.’ In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.:- a) ITO & Ors vs. LakhmaniMewalDas, 103 ITR 437 (SC). b) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, DEL HC-395 ITR 677 c) CIT Vs. Valvoline Cummins Ltd, Del HC-90 CCH 233 d) Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO, GUJ HC-56 DTR 212 e) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd, Del HC-325 ITR 285 f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, Kolkata ITAT-54 CCH 85 25. As per Para 11 of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in t…