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.

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 437)

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5657/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…lose nexus should be there between the information before the ITO and the belief which he has to prima facie form an opinion regarding the escapement of the income of the assessee. The relevant paragraphs of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220: (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) read 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 ITO and the formation of his belief that there h…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…lose nexus should be there between the information before the ITO and the belief which he has to prima facie form an opinion regarding the escapement of the income of the assessee. The relevant paragraphs of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220: (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) read 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 ITO and the formation of his belief that there h…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…lose nexus should be there between the information before the ITO and the belief which he has to prima facie form an opinion regarding the escapement of the income of the assessee. The relevant paragraphs of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220: (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) read 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 ITO and the formation of his belief that there h…

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…further and draw the necessary inferences while completing the assessment. 9.4 As to what can be the valid grounds for re-opening an assessment has been the subject matter of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the "reasons to believe" must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The court held as follows: “The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee f…

Candor Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2192/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2192/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Candor Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Sf-2, Bhikaji Kama Bhawan, Bhikaji Circle-5(2), Kama Place, New Delhi-110066 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcc4093R Assessee By : Sh. G. V. N. Hari, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Cit(A)-12, New Delhi’S In Case No. 46/17-18 Dated 15.12.2017, In Proceedings U/S 148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. G. V. N. Hari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 151

…151 of the Act. 2 Candor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 4. Learned CIT-DR on the other hand vehemently submits in light of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC), ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) and Sonia Gandhi Vs. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 594 (Del.) that neither the prescribed authorities’ above section 151 approval could be held as bad in the eyes of law nor the assessee is entitled to raise it’s foregoing additional ground at this be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

…observed 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. LakhmaniMerwal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have 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 met, the Assessee is entitled to cha…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…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). 2.2 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 belief cannot be investigated by the Court (Sheo Nath Singh…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…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). 2.2 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 belief cannot be investigated by the Court (Sheo Nath Singh…

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…jarat)] iii. PCIT vs. Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd., [2022] 288 taxman 20 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd., [2020] 113 taxmann.com 163 (SC) v. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) vi. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) vii. Changepond Technologies (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 516 viii. Unitech Exhibition (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 516 (Madras) ix. Tenzing Match Works vs. DCIT, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 543 (Madras) 4.3 The Ld.AR also submitted that the reassessment is bad in law since no statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

…e would like to place reliance on below judicial precedents The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Foramer - France [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) :-24-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LakhmaniMewal Das (103 ITR 437) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh - v. Appellate Asstt. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 • Lack of analysis during assessment cannot justify reassessment under Section 147: Where it was held that nothing new has come before the purview of the learned AO and order for reassessment is issued because of the lack of analysis at the time…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

…e would like to place reliance on below judicial precedents The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Foramer - France [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) :-24-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LakhmaniMewal Das (103 ITR 437) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh - v. Appellate Asstt. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 • Lack of analysis during assessment cannot justify reassessment under Section 147: Where it was held that nothing new has come before the purview of the learned AO and order for reassessment is issued because of the lack of analysis at the time…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…not be investigated by the court." 52. It has been similarly held in the following decisions: Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 (SC); Birla VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj); Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) Arjun Singh vs. ADIT 246 ITR 363 (MP) Seth Brothers vs. JCIT 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO 237 ITR 614 (MP) Lokendra Singh Rathore vs. WTO 155 ITR 629 (MP) United Electrical Co. (P) Limited vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del.) 53. In view of the aforesaid, it may be noted that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the bel…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…not be investigated by the court." 52. It has been similarly held in the following decisions: Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 (SC); Birla VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj); Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) Arjun Singh vs. ADIT 246 ITR 363 (MP) Seth Brothers vs. JCIT 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO 237 ITR 614 (MP) Lokendra Singh Rathore vs. WTO 155 ITR 629 (MP) United Electrical Co. (P) Limited vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 (Del.) 53. In view of the aforesaid, it may be noted that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the bel…

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(2), Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai 432, Lamington Road, Shigney Building, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 (PAN : AADHM4374A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Mitesh Mehta, CA Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National…

Prerna Agency Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Patna

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

ITA 285/PAT/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

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

…an Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 20,00,000/- from Riddhi Siddhi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. by account payee cheques and refunded the same. He has cited the following decisions: i) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AACIT (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) ii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii) New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 424 ITR 607 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. [2014]361 ITR 220(Delhi) 7. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 4 I.T.A. No. 285/pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prerna Agency Pvt. Ltd. 8. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

…ai in Premlatha Chhajed v/s The Income Tax Officer NCW - 5(4), Chennai (ITA No.2233/Mds/2017) 2.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Saran & sons P. Ltd. Reported in 130 ITR 1 3.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITO v/s Lakhmanimewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short given the circumstances of age and health. The AO's actions are criticized as hasty and impractical, causing undue harassment. 4. Misinterpretation of Facts: The AO allegedly misinterpreted an ag…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

…ai in Premlatha Chhajed v/s The Income Tax Officer NCW - 5(4), Chennai (ITA No.2233/Mds/2017) 2.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Saran & sons P. Ltd. Reported in 130 ITR 1 3.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITO v/s Lakhmanimewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short given the circumstances of age and health. The AO's actions are criticized as hasty and impractical, causing undue harassment. 4. Misinterpretation of Facts: The AO allegedly misinterpreted an ag…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

…or here say. The AO, acting as an honest person with reasonable prudence has to form a belief. 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 LakhmaniMewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 1.3 A belief can't be without any reason, surprisingly however, in present case it is not at all known what is the genesis i.e. material/information coming to his possession even remotely. The ld. AO in present case considered the valuation for the purpose of S. 50C of the Act being Rs.93,20,000 as against the actual sale consideration of R…

Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Keshod vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.16/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Vs. The Ito, “Pushpak”, Mahendrasinhji Chowk, Ward – 1, Street No.2, Ambawadi, Keshod – Junagadh 362220 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspr3548M (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…ons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs LakhmaniMewal Das [1976 ]103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring to tax income escaping assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court first held that the section provides that there must exist “reasons to believe“ and not “reasons to suspect”. The following were the relevant observations: “The fact that the words "definite information" which wer…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…here say. The AO, acting as an honest person with reasonable prudence has to form a belief. 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). 1.3 A belief can’t be without any reason, surprisingly however, in present case it is not at all known what is the genesis i.e. material/information coming to his possession even remotely. The ld. AO in present case merely had a look at the P&L A/c and Balance Sheet (PB 14-16) and selected certain items of the expenditure i.r.t. Truck and…

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

What is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

Candor Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

Prerna Agency Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Patna

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Keshod vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Junagadh

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror