Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT

367 ITR 165High Court2014#3583 most cited

What is Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the "reasons to believe" are not based on new, tangible material external to the original assessment record. A mere change of opinion or a review of the existing material without fresh evidence does not constitute valid grounds for reopening an assessment.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT · 367 ITR 165 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · reopening of assessment · reasons to believe · tangible material · change of opinion · full and true disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosurefull and true disclosurekelvinatormere change of opinionincome escaping assessmentchange of opiniontangible materialescapement of incomeregular assessmentreason to believereopening of assessmentsection 151

Judgments citing Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT

Gas & Power Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1118/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer RathiFor Respondent: Miss Bharti Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 43BSection 619B

…oceedings u/s 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening assessment—Reopening of assessment was unjustified—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.” Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that : “The foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the ra…

Tara Chand Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Tara Chand Jain -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ackpj1876H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ings u/s 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening assessment—Reopening of assessment was unjustified—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.” 6.14. Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that : “The foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the ra…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Infrastructure Leasing & Acit-10(1), Financial Services Ltd., The Il बनाम/ Mumbai - & Fs Centre, G. Glock, C-22, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaci0989F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d that revenue came up with any other fresh material warranting reopening of assessment—Reopening of assessment was unjustified—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.” 3.16. Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The “reasons to believe” are not based on “new tangible materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that : “The foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the ra…

Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1739/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1997-98 M/S Zodiac Clothing Dcit 7(3) Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan. बनाम/ 10/76 Off Haines Rd. Worli, M. K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai -400018 Mumbai (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacz0151A

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 80I

…law available on this issue and it was held that it was mandatory for the AO to have in its possession fresh tangible material before reopening of the case. Similar view has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi). There are many other judgments coming from many 10 Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. courts of the country upholding the same view which cannot be mentioned here for the sake of brevity. 3.7. It is further to be mentioned here that the validity of the ‘Reasons’ have to be examined on the basis of the perusal of the ‘Reasons’ only and on the bas…

E.I. Dupont Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…TR 561. He further submitted that as no new material came into the possession of Assessing Officer, reopening is based on material already on record, it is not permitted. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT 367 ITR 165 and CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536. He further submitted that reopening has been done at the behest of audit party and therefore it is invalid. For this proposition he relied on the orders of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. v. ACIT and Vodafone West Ltd. v. ACIT, Therefore, he submitted that 148 proceed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S E.I. Dupont India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…TR 561. He further submitted that as no new material came into the possession of Assessing Officer, reopening is based on material already on record, it is not permitted. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT 367 ITR 165 and CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536. He further submitted that reopening has been done at the behest of audit party and therefore it is invalid. For this proposition he relied on the orders of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. v. ACIT and Vodafone West Ltd. v. ACIT, Therefore, he submitted that 148 proceed…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central-2) vs. Victoria Marketing Pvt. Ltd

ITA/825/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…to the formation of the belief that income has escaped assessment. To recapitulate WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters Page 10 of 15 the law on this aspect as explained in Madhukar Khosla v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del): “the foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the raison d’etre of a reassessment notice are the “reasons to believe”. Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which…

Golden Tobacco Ltd ( Formerly Gtc Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

ITA 5859/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Gupta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dings u/s 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening assessment—Reopening of assessment was unjustified—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.” 6.14. Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible M/s.Golden Tobacco Limited. materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that : “The foundation of the…

Golden Tobacco Ltd ( Formerly Gtc Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

ITA 5858/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Gupta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dings u/s 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening assessment—Reopening of assessment was unjustified—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.” 6.14. Further reliance can be placed on the detailed judgment in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the reopening is not permitted under the law unless it is based on fresh tangible material and that if The “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible M/s.Golden Tobacco Limited. materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. It has been further observed that : “The foundation of the…

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1212/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t based on any new tangible material on record which amounts to mere review of the existing facts is impermissible and unsustainable I the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT, reported in 367 ITR 165. d. The assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law as the Notice under sec. 148 is merely based on suspicion and surmises and not based on factual foundation. e. The assumption of jurisdiction is further bad in law as the reasons recorded are mere reason to suspect and not reason to believe on the facts of the case. f. The mandatory condition for r…

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1209/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t based on any new tangible material on record which amounts to mere review of the existing facts is impermissible and unsustainable I the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT, reported in 367 ITR 165. d. The assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law as the Notice under sec. 148 is merely based on suspicion and surmises and not based on factual foundation. e. The assumption of jurisdiction is further bad in law as the reasons recorded are mere reason to suspect and not reason to believe on the facts of the case. f. The mandatory condition for r…