How many judgments cite ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das?

721 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437), spanning 2001 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 142(1), Section 68.

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 367,518 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 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 250 Section 132

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 147(a)section 158ba section 150 true and full disclosure live link unexplained jewellery section 148(2)beyond four years

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

ITO 17(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Varsha Pritam Rewari, Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 897/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer 17(3)(5) Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari Room No. 137, 1St Floor Flat No. 25, Cci Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai 400020 Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadpr9676G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: Shri Dhirendra Shah

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…s 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 Lakhmani Mewaldas (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". Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari (c) The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Since the finali…

ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Hansaben N Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 44/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 69C

…dated 02/09/2015 3) GG Diamond International Vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Mum.)(Trib.) 4) Balaji Textile Industries (p) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 49 lTD 177 (Mum.) 5) Dlalpat Singh Choudhary Vs. ACIT (2012) 25 Taxman 153 (Jodhpur) 6) ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 7) Mrs. Jalpa M Rughani Vs. ITO 25(3)(2) (ITA No, 7186/Mum/2103 8) ACIT Vs. Sri Islamuddin Mansuri (ITA No. 5050/Mum/2008 9) ITA No.1175/Mum/2012, Smt Durgadevi Mundra Vs. ITO 10) ITA No. 1176/Mum/2012, Sri Mahesh Mundra Vs. ITO 11) ITA No. 1442/Mum/2010, ITO Vs. Truptic Shah 12) ITA No. 6108/Mum/2009, Chandrakant Babulal Shah Vs. ITO 13) I…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. Keki H. Gharda, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of the validity of the reopening of the assessment

ITA 6656/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2004-05 Dr. Keki H. Gharda, Deputy Commissioner Of 48 Hill Road, Bandra (W), Income Tax 9(1), Vs. Mumbai - 50 M.K. Road, Pan: Aacpg31533E Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 80L

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dr. Keki H. Gharda, Deputy Commissioner of 48 Hill Road, Bandra (W), Income Tax 9(1), Vs. Mumbai - 50 M.K. Road, PAN: AACPG31533E Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Commissioner of Dr. Keki H. Gharda, Income Tax 9(1), 56, Jer Mansion, R.No.223, Vs. W.P. Varde Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 050 Mumbai - 20 PAN: AACPG31533E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: As…

Keki H. Gharda, Mumbai vs. Dci 9(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of the validity of the reopening of the assessment

ITA 2418/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 80L

Sobha Suburbia Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 627/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar N, Addl.CIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 148

…come was processed under Section 143(1) has held in paras 11 to 15 as under : “ 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 Lakhmani Mewaldas (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 quasi-…

Munni Devi, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3534/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08 Munni Devi Vs. Ito, Ward-2 W/O Sh. Mohar Singh, Rewari Vill. & Po Asia-Ki-Gorawas, Rewari (Pan: Bivpd3594G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

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

…ncome has escaped assessment; and that there has to be some kind of cause and effect of relationship between the reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das', 103 ITR 437 (SC), were reproduced. as under: "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 bee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5177/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-5177/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) DCIT vs Ansal Properties & Central Circle 20, Room No. 333, Infrastructure Ltd. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., 115, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi. 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. AAACA0006D Assessee by Sh. Satyam Sethi, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DR Date of Hearing 05.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1703/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv

Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT Vs Arvind Khanna Cent. Circle 5, 2, Shanti Farms, New Delhi. Chandanhola, Mehrauli, New Delhi. AAIPK9007F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2004-05 ACIT Vs Arvind Khanna Cent. Circle 5, 2, Shanti Farms, New Delhi. Chandanhola, Mehrauli, New Delhi. AAIPK9007F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Cross Objection No. 205/Del/2012 (In ITA No. 1703/Del/2012) Assessment Year 2004-05 Arvind Khanna Vs ACIT 2, Shanti Farms, Cent. Circle 5, Cha…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv

Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

Sri. N.G. Chandra Reddy (HUF), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 390/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renukadevi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.390/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri N.G. Chandra Reddy (HUF), Vs. Dy. Commissioner of No.222/222, Ashirvad, Income Tax, Doddanekkundi, Circle 7(1), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 037 PAN AAAHN 5853L Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. Renukadevi, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 20.06.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 20.7.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed agains…

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

…ly held to be valid by the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) " ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) " Shyam Bansal Vs ACIT-1, Agra (2006) 153 Taxman 526 (All.) 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO reopened the assessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that during th…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…ny relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO , 203 ITR 456,477 (ii) ALA Firm v. CIT 189 ITR 285, 298 (iii) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 119 ITR 996, 1004 (iv) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 445 The assessee company submitted that following documents were given to the AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings with respect to the claim u/s 80IA of the Act and no new material and tangible facts have come to light warranting invoking of provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act for re- opening of concluded assessment:- “ (…

M/S Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…to believe” are wide in their import, it cannot include a mere suspicion or ipse dixit of the AO. The belief of the AO should lead him to form an honest and 4 ITA No.3052/Del./2013 reasonable opinion based on reasonable grounds. (ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das – 103 ITR 437 at 448 (SC) and Navinchandra Mohanlal Parik vs. vs. WTO – 124 ITR 68). The Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – 256 ITR 1 held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come…

Smt. Chaya Sinha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh Susan George, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…ns themselves cannot be stated to be beliefs, which would be an obvious self-contradiction. 14. 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 ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). 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…

ITO 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Desire Jewels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 136/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah

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

…the impugned assessment proceedings having regard to the ratio of the following judicial pronouncements:- 1. Signature Hotels vs. ITO & another, 338 ITR 51(Del) 2. Meera Kapoor vs. CIT, ITA No.1395 of 2008 dated 31/08/2012(Del) 3. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437 (SC) 4. M/s. Intime Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No.1726/Mum/2012 order dated 27.07.2015 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. One of the necessary ingredients required to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that certain income chargeable to ta…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…sessment proceedings cannot be upheld, as the reasons recorded only lead to a suspicion and not to reasons to believe. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Sheonath (supra) and ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437). On merits of disallowance of commission expenditure, learned counsel for assessee submitted that the following material was produced before the AO during the course of the original assessment proceedings in support of the claim for deduction of commission expenditure: (i) copy of the agreement (ii) audited financial statement (iii) invoices r…

Shri Rajesh Kumar Narang, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3881/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3881/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Shri Rajesh Kumar Narang, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S Rajesh Steel, Baghpat Ward-2(2), Road, Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adfpn2097N Assessee By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rt held that the Circular by itself, without any other material and investigation, could not afford any basis to the I.T.O. for having a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Likewise, in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437(S.C.) where again the creditor allegedly had confessed that he had lent his name only and there has nothing to show that the confession related to any advance to the assessee or even the period during which name and not loan was sent and where it was not shown through any material that confession pertained to the specific period, the subject matt…

Praveen Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raopraveen Kumar Jain, Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, Ward-39(3), Vs. F-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Pan:Ahhpk2948R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ent case also the reason for reopening is for further investigation to find out the source of investment for the purchase of the property, which is not permissible in law. 17. Further in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 439, the Apex Court has held that “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 Officer and the formation of his belief that t…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Scinida P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

ITA 7071/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rther, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents on the issue of reassessment u/s.147 which are listed as under: - (i) Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2007) 294 ITR 101 (ii) German Remedies Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom) (iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (iv) CIT vs. Holck Larsen 85 ITR 467 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (vi) N.C. Gupta vs. ACIT (2004) 90 ITD 768 (Del.) (vii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 300 ITR 276 (Bom.) 6. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) held the reopening as invalid by observing that there was mere change of opinion. Prec…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…n of an income which has escaped assessment. There has to be some kind of a cause and effect relationship between reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment. observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437] that, “……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 inc…