ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.

217 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1996#533 most cited

What is ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

180

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. · section 147 · section 148 · reason to believe · subjective satisfaction · escapement of income · borrowed satisfaction · change of opinion · tangible material · live link

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)full and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentescapement of incomeborrowed satisfactionincome escaping assessmentmere change of opinionlive linkreason to believetangible materialchange of opinionkelvinator

Judgments citing ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…erial would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of the belief is within the realm of the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. ITO v. Selected Daiurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC) and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) followed. ” Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 340 ITR 0064, while rejecting the writ petition of the assessee against reopening under section 148, has held as under:- “On the grounds that out of…

Kamlesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1462/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kanandan, D.R
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ls would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction [see ITO vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 162 : (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 418 : (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)]”. On the basis of the facts of the case before us read a/w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the A.O had validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and reopened the case of the assessee. We, thus, finding no infirmity in…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…at is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236ITR 34 (SC). 8.14 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that "reason to believe" does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before…

Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…rue or not, is not the concern at this stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within his subjective satisfaction - refer Supreme Court's decision in the cases of ITO vs. Select Dalurband Coal Company Put. Ltd. (1 996) 21 7 ITR 597} 599 (SC) and Central Province Manganese Ore Company Ltd. vs. JTO (1991) ITR 662, 666 (SC), In the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. v CIT (2016) 289 CTR (Guj) 139 information was received from investigation wing regarding bogus entry operators and the assessee being one such beneficiary. It was held that whether assessee is a beneficiary…

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…rue or not, is not the concern at this stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within his subjective satisfaction - refer Supreme Court's decision in the cases of ITO vs. Select Dalurband Coal Company Put. Ltd. (1 996) 21 7 ITR 597} 599 (SC) and Central Province Manganese Ore Company Ltd. vs. JTO (1991) ITR 662, 666 (SC), In the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. v CIT (2016) 289 CTR (Guj) 139 information was received from investigation wing regarding bogus entry operators and the assessee being one such beneficiary. It was held that whether assessee is a beneficiary…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1060 & 1061/DEL/2015 Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2009-10 J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT, B-17, First Floor, Circle-II, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad. Faridabad. TAN/PAN: AAACJ9814A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 05 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER, AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned ord…

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2062/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 21 7 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 8.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that "reason to believe" does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before t…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3968/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 21 7 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 8.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that "reason to believe" does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before t…

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6 (Old), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3245/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Bothra & Shri R. K. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S Duggal
Section 132(1)

…is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 21 7 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 8.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) (291 ITR 500) has categorically stated that "reason to believe" does not mean that the reason for re-opening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before t…

Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2669/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.2669/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 2. To 8. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.108 To 114/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Bhanwarlal M. Jain Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Patit Hall Compound Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 9. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3509/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 10. To 16. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 To 104/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) Bhanwarlal M. Jain 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Pratishtha Bhavan Patit Hall Compound Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld.Ars Revenue By : Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl. Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.2669/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 2. to 8. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.108 to 114/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Bhanwarlal M. Jain DCIT-Central Circle-1(3) 171, 17th Floor Old CGO Bldg. 9th Floor, Room No…

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year 2008-09 Space Chem Engineers Vs. ITO, Ward -2(3) Private Limited, 206-207, Ghaziabad. Ansal Satyam RDC, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh 201 002 PAN AALCS8969E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Shri Pushkar Pandey, Advocate Department by : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/02/2021 Date of 18/03/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 4th December, 20…

Khetan Twist Net P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3031/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Khetan Twist Net Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-12(3)(2), Room No. 147A, 1st Floor, Aayakar B-204, Hetal Arch, Opp: Natraj Vs. Market, S.V. Road, Malad (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABCK4794N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Arati Vissanji, AR Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande, DR : 05/11/2020 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 23/11/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed…

Sh. Kamal Galani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assesee for Asst

ITA 138/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 144Section 144oSection 147

…elief whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the A.O. is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v. selected Dalurhand Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)” * xi. As can be seen from the above, the settled legal position, at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is that, what is required on the part of assessing officer is the existence of 'reasonable belief and not conclusive evidence to support escapement of income.…

O.P.Yadav, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circ Le-15, New Delhi

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

ITA 5523/DEL/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction [see ITO vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 11 ITA No.5523/Del./2018 162 : (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 418 : (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)]. 17. The scope and effect of s. 147 as substituted with effect from 1st April, 1989, as also ss. 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of s. 147, separate cls. (a) and (…

Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2013 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Vodafone Idea Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Successor To Aditya Birla Telecom Income Tax Limited) Aayaker Bhavan, M.K. Road, बिाम/ 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2100P अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr.Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, SR.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…essee. He also relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR Vodafone Idea Limited ; AY 07-08 297(SC) and Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 and ITO vs. Selvted Balurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd., 217 ITR 597 (SC). Under the circumstances, this is not a case of ‘change of opinion’ but a valid case of subsequent developments. The LAO, therefore, validly assumed the jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. 5.2.3. Regarding the LAPs alternate argument that the reassessment was at the behest of revenue audit party, it is noted that the…

Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

…r the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC) ; Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC).” 17. On the basis of several judicial precedents cited before us by the learned authorised representative challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jhavery Stock Brokers P Ltd (291 ITR 500) (SC) the crux of…

Omvir Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7437/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…ation entries pertaining to 16 entities which sum in the aggregate works out to Rs. 78 lakhs. 8. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relied on the decisions in Income-Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 and ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 to urge that at the stage of reopening of the assessment, the AO is not expected to undertake any detailed inquiry; it was sufficient if on the basis of the information received he was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for reopening the assessment as income had escaped assessment.…

Ashapura Minechem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6974/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Listed Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Mining Bauxite & Selling The Same In Domestic As Well As International Market. The Assessee Had Filed An Income Tax Return Disclosing Total Loss Of Rs 509.11 Crores Whereas The Assessment Under

Section 143(3)Section 155J

…ssment year: 2011-12 Page 7 of 11 20. The judgments in cases of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 69 Taxman 627/203 ITR 456 (SC), I.P. Patel & Co. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 200/346 ITR 207 (Guj.), ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC), Rattan Gupta v. Union of India [1998] 234 ITR 220 (Delhi), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62/197 Taxman 177/333 ITR 146 (Delhi), Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), cited by learned Counsel for the reve…

M/S. Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 2574/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…r the material would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is also because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction [see ITO v Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. V ITO [(1990) 236 34(SC)]. 9 M/s.Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-op Ltd. 6.1 The learned DR further submitted that the scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Und…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) - 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Agarwal Textiles Industries P. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaca3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Agarwal Textiles Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Anandi Varma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AR
Section 147

…ue, the Apex Court has held that "AO must give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. In other words, AO must have some prima facie grounds before him for taking recourse action under section 148. In ITO v. Selected Daluv Band Coal Co. (P) Ltd (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC), the Apex Court observed that at the stage of issuance of notice under section 148, the only question is whether there was relevant material, on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. Again in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vrs. ITO & Ors (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Apex Court while refusing to interfere with the reass…