Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

384 ITR 322High Court2016#3749 most cited

What is Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment after four years requires tangible material, not just information, and the reasons recorded must be specific, showing a live nexus to escaped income, and demonstrate application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Khubchandani Healthparks · reassessment · section 147 · section 149(1)(c) · tangible material · application of mind · vague reasons · live nexus · escaped income · CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd.

Also reported as

68 Taxmann.com 91

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39onus of proofsection 5(2)substantive assessmentaccumulated profitspaper companyshell companysource of sourcenon application of mindcreditworthiness of the creditor

Judgments citing Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

Balbir Ispat P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6953/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish V. Pophane, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…money received has escaped assessment in terms of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that exactly on identical facts Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom) has held that Regular Return of income was assessed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was done. In the above view, to ascertain the nature and the justification for charging share premium, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that charging of share premium over and above the intrinsic value of t…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cr 4, Mumbai vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Cc- 4(3) Central M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Range-4, Room No. 1921, Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Express Highway, Opp Sion Building, Nariman Point, Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.132/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 4(3) Central Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern Range-4, Room No. 1921, C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Express Highway, Opp Sion Vs. Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…n’ble Bombay High Court in case of NIVI Trading Ltd. vs. Union of India (278 CTR 219), CIT vs. Smt. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453 (Bom)], Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT [332 ITR 587(Bom)], Khubchandani Health parks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar vs. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293], Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Batra Bhatia Company [321 ITR 526], CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [354 ITR 536], Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561(SC)] . 7. We have considered the rival subm…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e substantially improved upon. In this regard, he referred to decision of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom). The ld. Counsel of the assessee further relied upon the decision of the Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2016] 384 ITR 322 (Bom) He submitted that in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra) has been duly considered. On merits of the case, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has properly considered the issue that the investors in this case are established companies. That…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kargwal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross- objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M. Naveen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…T [404 ITR 747] (Karn.), (viii) CIT v. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453] (Bom.), (ix) CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company [220 CTR 531] (Del.), (x) Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar v. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293] (Guj.), (xi) Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322] (Bom.), (xii) Vodafone India Services Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [368 ITR 1] (Bom.). Reliance is also placed on CBDT’s Instruction No. 2/2015 [F. No. 500/15/2014-APA-I] dated 29.01.2015. 6.1 The Ld. counsel submits that reopening of the assessment cannot be done without presence of tangible external source of information obtained subsequent to…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…ns have cancelled re-assessment proceedings initiated in group concern/s of Sandvik AB. It was further pointed out by him that the Tribunal had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom), wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P)…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…ns have cancelled re-assessment proceedings initiated in group concern/s of Sandvik AB. It was further pointed out by him that the Tribunal had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom), wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P)…

ITO 6 (3) (4), Mumbai vs. Krr Investment Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6008/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainito-6(3)(4), R.No 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ……………. Appellant M.K. Marg, Mumbai 400 020 V/S

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO-6(3)(4), R.No 522, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ……………. Appellant M.K. Marg, Mumbai 400 020 v/s M/s. KRR Investment Consultancy Private Limited, 303, Jogani Industrial Estate, 541, ……………. Respondent Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400028 PAN:-AACCK4930E Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing-02.04.2018 Date of Order –09.05.2018 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 5006/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of this stolen data, the assessee has been held to be liable for the deposit in the bank account. The ld. Counsel further referred that the Assessing Officer is not su…

Chintan H Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of this stolen data, the assessee has been held to be liable for the deposit in the bank account. The ld. Counsel further referred that the Assessing Officer is not su…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 2795/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of this stolen data, the assessee has been held to be liable for the deposit in the bank account. The ld. Counsel further referred that the Assessing Officer is not su…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

…escaping assessment. In the present case, at best the case of the assessing officer falls in the second category. Further Amit K. Shah's case(supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubuchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 68 taxmann.com 91/384 ITR 322 has held that notice u/s. 148 would be without reasons for absence of reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment even in case where assessment has been completed earlier by intimation u/s. 143(1). Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 221 has held that justification for reopening…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…ing Officer in the case of the present assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs G and G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del.), Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.) and Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.5128/Del./2015 ; (2016) 46 CCH 546 (Del. Trib.) order dated 22/04/2016. 2.1. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, contended that statement of broker was recorded and relied 3 Ajay J. Doshi upon the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.2…