ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur

97 ITR 239Supreme Court of India1974#2770 most cited

What is ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or having second thoughts on the same material that was available during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer's omission to draw a correct legal presumption or inference from disclosed facts, without any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, does not warrant reopening.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur · 97 ITR 239 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(3) · change of opinion · reassessment validity · reopening assessment · same material · true and full disclosure · legal presumption · no fresh material

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 149Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 268test of enduring benefitsection 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 35ddsection 147(b)section 72ascheme of arrangementsection 115jaasection 2(31)first proviso to section 147section 39

Judgments citing ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur

RAYMIX CONCRETE INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2770/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. Lekha, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 37

…ion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceeds. 8. In ITO vs.Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) it was held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during the original assessment do not warrant the initiation of proceeding u/s.147. In the absence of any fresh material, reopening would amount to change of opinion. Enclosing the copy of the case law on Page no. 8 - 14 of the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else far less the assessee to tell the assessing authority what inferences-whether of facts or law should be drawn." 5.29 In the case of ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid reasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly sil material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on the same…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is\nnot for somebody else far less the assessee to tell the assessing authority what\ninferences-whether of facts or law should be drawn.\"\n\n5.29 In the case of ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239,\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held:\n\n\"The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid\nreasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and\ntruly sil material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the\nassessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on t…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…t legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else far less the\nassessee to tell the assessing authority what inferences-whether of facts or law should be\ndrawn.\"\n5.29 In the case of ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239,\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held:\n\"The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid\nreasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and\ntruly sil material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the\nassessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…t legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is\nnot for somebody else far less the assessee to tell the assessing authority what\ninferences-whether of facts or law should be drawn.\"\n5.29 In the case of ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239,\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court held:\n\"The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid\nreasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and\ntruly sil material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the\nassessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on the…

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 405/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri P.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

…, this is nothing but an attempt to review of his own order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act based on change of opinion. 4.5 Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Barkhat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239(SC) in which it is held that having second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during the original assessment do not warrant the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582(SC) held that when the primary facts necessar…

DALU VASU HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1788/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Ruparel , AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 24

…y “Change of Opinion” as no new material came into possession of Department after the completion of original assessment. (b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v/s. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582(SC) and Nawab Mir Ali (97 ITR 239 (SC) has held that having second thought on same matrial is not permissible to reopen the assessment. (c) Section 147(3) clearly says that assessment cannot be reopened after 4 years, if there is no failure on the part of assessee. 8. In view of the above, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 -12-2024. (AM…

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

…considered Opinion that if the AO should have but did not do so then, he cannot avail of section 147 to correct that mistake. 13. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of “ ITO Vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239(SC) in which it is held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147 of the I. Tax Act,1961. Further Hon’ble supreme court in the case of “ CIT Vs Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) held that when the…

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. MICRO POLYESTER PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2678/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Micro Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, 2025, Jash Textile Market, Ring Vs. Surat. Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Aabcm 6127 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 43B

…) held that when primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence the proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, in case of ITO Vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 97 ITR 239 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that having second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) 7 ACIT Vs M/s Micro Polyster P Ltd. further held that he has noted that the Assessing Officer was…

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA MIRDHA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ossession of the Ld. AO. He scrutinized the same documents which were already available on records for seeking to reopen the assessment which, in our view, amounts to re-appraisal of the same facts and change of opinion. In ITO vs. Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 97 ITR 239 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that having second thoughts on the same material cannot be a ground for valid and proper initiation of reassessment proceedings. 10. Much stress has been laid by the Revenue on the principle of res- judicata which does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Suffice is to say that when the facts are not different…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE vs. MR. M R SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, but the reasons to believe must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief as held in case of ITO/WTO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur reported in [1974] 97 ITR 239 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Ld.AR submitted that the reasons do not show information if any received from investigation and further it does not show as to from which investigation wing the information was received. He also submitted that, there was no cogent material available for issuance of notice u/s. 148. He thus submitted that the concl…

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…the Act (s. 147) which in 25 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. our opinion is impermissible. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the Departmental appeal.” d) In the case of ITO vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) reported in 97 ITR 239 (SC), it was held that second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding u/s 147. The Honourable Court observed as under:- “4. ……… The High Court was right in holding that the ITO had no valid reason to believe that the respondent had om…

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 26/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…the Act (s. 147) which in 25 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. our opinion is impermissible. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the Departmental appeal.” d) In the case of ITO vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) reported in 97 ITR 239 (SC), it was held that second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding u/s 147. The Honourable Court observed as under:- “4. ……… The High Court was right in holding that the ITO had no valid reason to believe that the respondent had om…

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULATURE AND RURAL DEVELOPEMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 4277/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36

…wherein the Apex Court has held that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled, on mere change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. g) ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) (SC) wherein the Hon'ble court has held that having second thought on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the imitation of a proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. h) CIT Vs. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (263 ITR 180) (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictions! High Court has held…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…eve’ occurring in section 147 does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief [ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC)]. 1.2.4 Heart of the Section 147 is the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. This is the bare minimum mandatory requirement of the first part of Section 147(1) of the Act. Merely…

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…diction. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:- SI.No. Particulars Reopening of Assessment without any new material on record or without reasons to believe that income has escaped Assessment is invalid ITO vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1947) 97 ITR 239 1. (Supreme Court) 2. Asian Paints Limited vs DCIT and Another (308 ITR 195) (Bombay High Court) 3. DCIT vs Suyash Chemicals 2010 TIOL 128 ( Mumbai ITAT ) Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs ITO and ANR 231 ITR 200 (1998) 4. (Supreme Court) Jal Hotel Co. Ltd vs ADIT (2009) 184 Taxman 1 (Delhi High Court) 5. Jindal Photo Films Ltd vs Deputy CIT (1988)…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3