ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362Supreme Court of India1997#1261 most cited

What is ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur authority for?

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur · 224 ITR 362 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · escapement of income · information from investigation wing · borrowed satisfaction · application of mind · validity of reassessment · reopening assessment

Also reported as

90 Taxmann 641

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69ASection 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 46asection 147(a)section 147(1)section 147(b)section 129full and true disclosuresection 131(1a)live linkprincipal officersanctioning authorityborrowed satisfactionmaterial facts necessary for assessment

Judgments citing ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

…om the Investigation Wing after completion of original assessment and therefore constituted fresh tangible material. Undoubtedly, information from an external source may constitute tangible material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur 224 ITR 362 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. 85 taxmann.com 84 have recognized this principle. However, the material must have live link and nexus with the assessee’s case. In the present matter, the notice under section 148A(b) contains general allegations regarding manipulation by JM Financial and dividend stripping. It…

RATORI MAA TRADING P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs Ito M-98, 2Nd Floor, Jagat Ward -21(1) Rampark, Laxmi Nagar, New C. R. Building, New Delhi Delhipan: Aaecr0612A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…the part of the A. O. that owing to the new material/information received, there had been escapement of income. 5.5. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Purushottam Dass Bangur reported in 224 ITR 362, on the issue of application of mind by the AO to information received while recording reasons. It was held. that on basis of facts and information contained in letter of Directorate of Investigation, the ITO could have formed opinion 6 Ratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs. ITO that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escape…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…s prima facie some material on the\nbasis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that\nthe sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be\nconsidered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90\nTaxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the\ncontention of the assessee that the information received from the\nDeputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite\ninformation and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for\ntaking action under Section 147 of the Act. It was held that the\ninformation contained in th…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5601/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…s prima facie some material on the\nbasis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that\nthe sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be\nconsidered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90\nTaxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the\ncontention of the assessee that the information received from the\nDeputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite\ninformation and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for\ntaking action under Section 147 of the Act. It was held that the\ninformation contained in th…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5599/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…e was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90 Taxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the assessee that the information received from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite information and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for P a g e | 13 ITA No.5584, 5585, 5586, 5599, 5601 &,5615/Mum/ 2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5586/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251Section 263

…s prima facie some material on the\nbasis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that\nthe sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be\nconsidered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90\nTaxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the\ncontention of the assessee that the information received from the\nDeputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite\ninformation and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for\nPage 12\nITA No.5584, 5585, 5586, 5599, 5601 &,5615/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…e was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90 Taxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the assessee that the information received from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite information and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for P a g e | 13 ITA No.5584, 5585, 5586, 5599, 5601 &,5615/Mum/ 2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16…

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 5584/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

…s prima facie some material on the\nbasis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that\nthe sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be\nconsidered at this stage. In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 90\nTaxman 541/224 ITR 362 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the\ncontention of the assessee that the information received from the\nDeputy Director, Directorate of Income tax (Inv.) was not a definite\ninformation and should not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for\ntaking action under Section 147 of the Act. It was held that the\ninformation contained in th…

IMRAN AHMAD,MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3490/DEL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…TR 456 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.). It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. PurshotamDassBangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) that the information received from the Deputy Director (Inv.) constitutes valid information and reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT SLP has dismissed the SLP of assessee on the ground that Information regarding bogus purchas…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CDS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when based on information from the investigation wing, provided the AO exercises due diligence and does not act mechanically: 1. Income-tax Officer vs. Purushottam Das Bangur [1997] 90 Taxman 541 (SC)/[1997] 224 ITR 362 (SC)/[1997] 139 CTR 32 (SC)[22-01-1997] 2. AGR Investment Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2011] 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi)/[2011] 333 1TR 146 (Delhi)/[2011] 239 CTR 378 (Delhi) [07.01.2011] 3. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. Income-tax Officer [1993] 69 Taxman 627 (SC)/[1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)/ [1993] 113 C…

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…r.w.s. 148 of the Act and there is no infirmity and illegality in issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by Assessing Officer. (A. Y. 2006-07) (ii) Srinivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for…

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…r.w.s. 148 of the Act and there is no infirmity and illegality in issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by Assessing Officer. (A. Y. 2006-07) (ii) Srinivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for…

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

…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 belated stage once the Assessing Officer had recorded his reopening reasons strictly as per law. 5. We…

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)

…e introduced in its books of accounts by taking accommodation entry.\n3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) is justified in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,220/- without appreciating the decisions of Hon.\nSupreme Court in 224 ITR 362, Hon. Madras High Court 242 ITR 176 and Hon.\nPunjab & Haryana High Court 2452 ITR 554 wherein it was held that even a letter\nfrom DDIT (Inv.) constitutes information for re-opening assessment.\n4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) is justified in\ndeleting the addition without invoking provisions of section 250(…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 25/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 24/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 23/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 22/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 21/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

ITA 20/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re, there is no illegality or irregularity in arriving at a belief that assessment ITA No.429/RJT/2017& Others A Y:2009-10& Others deserves to be reopened. Relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur & Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC), it was held that action of reopening of assessment was found to be justified. Therefore, ground nos.1 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we note that ld. DR for the revenue submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not co-operated and did not submit the details of…

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (224 ITR 362) — Cited in 90 Judgments | BharatTax