Jivraj Tea Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1)(2)

426 ITR 146High Court2020#10612 most cited

What is Jivraj Tea Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1)(2) authority for?

The case discusses the assessment proceedings, specifically whether the Assessing Officer had a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening of assessments.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jivraj Tea Limited · Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax · 426 ITR 146 · assessment procedure · reopening assessment · escaped income · bona fide belief · Section 147 · Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Jivraj Tea Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1)(2)

Shriram Fiance Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2635/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2635/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Since Shriram City Union Finance Vs. Of Income Tax, Limited Amalgamated With Corporate Circle 3(1), Shriram Transport Finance Co. Chennai. Ltd. & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.,) Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ssioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd EICHELN (320 ITR 561) (SC) ii. CIT Vs India Cements Limited 274 Taxman 123 Madras HC iii. International Flower and Fragrance India Private Limited Vs JCIT 274 Taxman 134 Madras HC iv. Jivraj Tea Limited Vs ACIT 426 ITR 146 Madras HC 6. The Ld.DR on merits sought to distinguish the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case (supra) by stating that in the case before Hon’ble Madras High Court there was actual sale of government securities and not merely a provision. 7. In rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that in the case considered by the Hon…

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2013) 350 ITR 266 (Guj) 8) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jivraj Tea Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1)(2) [2020] 426 ITR 146 (Gujarat) 9) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone West Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2013) 354 ITR 572 (Gujarat) 10) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai vs. India Cements Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 410 (Madras) 11) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( Manav Mangal Society), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…&H) 25. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 393 ITR 264 (RAJ) 26. PCIT V/s Baldev Singh Prop M/s Nankana Sahib Road Lines, ITA No. 283 of 2016 (O&M) order dated. 12.02.2018 (P&H) 27. Jivraj Tea Limited V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 426 ITR 146 (GUJ) 28. Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited Vs. DCIT(2020) 428 ITR 117 (A.P) 41. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that after conducting the survey, the relevant information came to the knowledge of the assessee that the payments were made to the specifi…

Jivraj Tea Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1)(2) (426 ITR 146) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax