ITO v. Sarabhai M Lakhani

243 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2000#15416 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 115JB Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Judgments citing ITO v. Sarabhai M Lakhani

Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kamlesh Gupta & Sons Huf Ito-19(2)(2) 95-C, Mittal Towers Piramal Chamber Nariman Point, Churchgate Vs. Lalbaug, Lower Mumbai-400 021. Parel, Mumbai-12. Pan : Aaehk4734K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Mantri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at that stage”. b) Again, in the case of ITO Vs. Sarabhai M Lakhani (2000) 243 ITR 1 (SCJ) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power of the assessing officer under section 147[b] is wide enough to confer jurisdiction on any information received by the assessing officer from whatever source. c) On the issue of reasons to believe, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court In the case of Indo European Breweries Ltd. Vs. ITO (Bom.) (2012), 343 I…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 148

…ng above Rs. One Lakh is covered by the provisions of section 49(1) (b) of the 1.T. Act, 1961. Further in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Civil App No. 5390/2007., Hon'ble Supreme Court, ITO Vs. Sarabhai M Lakhani 243 ITR 1 and A.L.A. firm Vs. CIT reported in 189 ITR 285, proceedings u/s 147 may be initiated on the basis of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA Nos.153 to 157/LKW/2023 C.O. Nos.23, 24, 21,22 and 25/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 61 Bangalore Vs. M/s Chamundi Winery & Distillery, [2018] 97 taxmann.com 568…

The Churu Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Churu, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Ncr Building Jaipur

ITA 127/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 263

…o revision under the clause (a) & (b) of Explanation (2) to section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order is set aside as discussed above.” 4. Following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT 243 ITR 1, Pr.CIT hold that the assessment order passed by the AO dated 26.12.2019 for the assessment year under consideration as erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under clause (a) & (b) of Explanation (2) U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act as the assessment order passed by the AO on an incorrect assumption of facts and an incorre…

The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/S Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 136/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmad Bhat, Ward-3(3), Srinagar Prop. Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Rainawari, Srinagar (J&K). [PAN:AIRPB 0054E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Respondent by: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA) Date of hearing: 03.04.2019 Date of pronouncement: 23.04.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue Department against the o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/1232/2009HC Delhi18 Oct 2012

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…nketesan v. Wealth Tax Officer 146 CTR 268. 5. Counsel further contended that initiation of reassessment proceeding based on the decision of a High Court (and for that matter even the Tribunal) is valid. He took support from ITO v. Saradbhai M. Lakhani 243 ITR 1 (SC), R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh 70 ITR 74 (SC), Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 224 ITR 560. 6. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, defended the Tribunal’s decision. It was argued that notice for reassessment was served after lapse of f…

M/S. S.E. Investments Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1)

ITA/437/2012HC Delhi03 Oct 2012

Section 10Section 2(7)Section 5

…le to tax for the relevant assessment year 2000-01 had escaped assessment. The appellate 2012:DHC:6147-DB ITA 437/2012, C.M. NO.12972/2012 Page 4 commissioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Saradbhai. M. Lakhani & Anr., (2000) 243 ITR 1 and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO, (1999) 236 ITR 34. On these grounds, the appellate commissioner held that there was no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings which were validly initiated. 5. So far as the other question as to whether the real nature of the transaction was one of hire-purchase or interest received on loan was conce…