How many judgments cite Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO (408 ITR 268), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(1).

Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO

408 ITR 268High Court2018#4362 most cited

What is Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO authority for?

An assessment framed under Section 147/143(3) is invalid if the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening are based on incorrect facts, such as a wrongly recorded belief that no return of income was filed. The approval for reopening under Section 151 must be granted by the specified authority with due application of mind to the reasons provided.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO · 408 ITR 268 · Section 147 · Section 151 · reopening of assessment · invalid assessment · incorrect facts · non application of mind · sanction under section 151 · specified authority

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144 Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 10(25)section 2(40)sanctioning authority sanction under section 151 non application of mind material facts necessary for assessment specified authority section 50c section 50 section 151(1)borrowed satisfaction reopening of assessment

Judgments citing Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO

BINDU DHARMESH BHATT,VADODARA vs. ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 274

…d issues while framing assessment proves that "jurisdictional facts", based on which the case was reopened, are "incorrect". The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Manish P. Kiri vs. ACIT - SCA 15475 of 2015; ii) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO - 408 ITR 268 (Gujarat); iii)Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO - (409 ITR 595 (Delhi); Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening is not justified, hence, consequential assessment order is not justified and the same may be quashed. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused…

GDR FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Gdr Finance & Leasing Vs. Assessment Unit, Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 323, Agrawal Plaza, Nfac. Dda Community Centre, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 110 088. Pan: Aaacg2363D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri Rupinder Aggarwal, Shri R.P. Mall, Shri Uma Shankar, Ms Suman Verma & Ms Vidushi Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…stant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2025] 473 ITR 466 (Delhi), iii. Akshar Builders & Developers v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 411 ITR 602 (Bombay) iv. Ankita A. Choksey vs. ITO W.P. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.1.2019 HC (Bom) v. Mumtaz Hazi Mohmad Memon Vs. ITO 408 ITR 268 (Guj) vi. Pr. CIT v. RMG Ply vinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del) vii. PCIT vs. SNG Developers Limited 404 ITR 312 (Del) 6 viii. Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Del) ix. Synfonia Tradelinks (P). Ltd. vs. ITO 435 ITR 642 (Del) x. Sunrise Education Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) 92 taxmann.com 74 (Guj) 6. Learned authorized representative for the Departm…

SANJEEV GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 992/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

…r while recording reasons, recorded that no return of income was filed. Accordingly, assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is invalid as the facts were wrongly recorded and relied on Gujrat High Court decision in the case of Mumaz Hazi Mohhmad Menon 408 ITR 268(Guj) and Dr Ajit Gupta 383 ITR 361 (Del). ii) Secondly, the assessee challenged the grant of approval u/s 151 by specified Authority as without Page 3 of 20 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Sanjeev Garg reading the contents of the reasons and without application of mind. iii) the Assessing Officer while recording his reasons, did not comply with the pro…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR, 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMIT SAMPATHRAJ SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 5380/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assisstant Vs. Amit Sampathraj Commissioner of Income Shah Tax, CIR, 20(1), 2701, B Wing, One 3rd Floor, Piramal Avighna Park, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mahadeo Palav Marg, Lower Parel, Currey Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400012 PAN:ASYPS7924F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Harsh Kapadia, Ajay Nagpal Respondent by Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The p…

AMIT BEHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(1) (2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 923/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…n question; there are no deposits in bank a/c on account of sale of property; even no addition has been made on account of sale of property. The ld AR relied on: ➤ Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – 409 ITR 595 (Delhi); ➤ Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO – 408 ITR 268 (Gujarat); ➤ Manishkumar P. Kiri vs. ACIT – SCA 15475 of 2015 (Guj); 7. The ld AR further pointed out that the reopening is not justified in the eyes of law as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment u/s 148A(d) of the Act, has given incorrect facts and there is no identification of the property involved. The…

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 304/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mangi Lal Datla 52, Shri Ram Colony, Near Dr. Tali Hospital, Banswara Vs. The ITO, Banswara PAN No. PANNo.:ACXPD0504F Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/06/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appe…

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

…and altogether reverse then all the proceedings are void –ab-initio and\nliable to be quashed.\n1.2.1 On this preposition we would like to draw your kind attention on direct\ndecision Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Hazi Mohamad\nMemon v/s ITO 408 ITR 268(Guj.) on the very same issue, wherein the Honble\nCourt has held that\n\"11. In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two\nfundamental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs.\n1,18,95,000/- and two; that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore\nhis 1/3rd share out of the sale proc…

PERNIA QURESHI CONSULTANCY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI

ITA 992/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…rial and altogether reverse then all the proceedings are void –ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 1.2.1 On this preposition we would like to draw your kind attention on direct decision Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Hazi Mohamad Memon v/s ITO 408 ITR 268(Guj.) on the very same issue, wherein the Honble Court has held that "11. In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two fundamental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- and two; that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore his 1/3rd share out of the sale proceeds w…

OASIS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

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

…the Assessing Officer for reopening the case of the assessee were incorrect, since, as a matter of fact, there is no contrived loss as stated in the reasons for reopening. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- 1) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO – 408 ITR 268 (Gujarat); 2) Manishkumar P. Kiri vs. ACIT – SCA 15475 of 2015 (Guj); 3) Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO – 409 ITR 595 (Delhi). 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that the reopening is merely based on borrowed satisfaction in respect of information received from DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai and there is no independent application of mind at the…

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 5

…rial and altogether reverse then all the proceedings are void –ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 2.2.1 On this preposition we would like to draw your kind attention on direct decision Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Hazi Mohamad Memon v/s ITO 408 ITR 268(Guj.) on the very same issue, wherein the Honble Court has held that "11. In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two fundamental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- and two; that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore his 1/3rd share out of the sale proceeds w…

KUNWAR PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 172/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

…on‟ble Bombay High Court order dated 15.12.2021, decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa Vs. ACIT reported in 435 ITR 699 and decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon Vs. ITO reported in 408 ITR 268 had quashed 5 | P a g e AY: 2010-11 the reopening proceedings. The relevant observation of the order of the Mumbai Tribunal are as under:- “3.2. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. From the perusal of the reasons recorded reproduced supra, we find that the reopening was made on the mistaken assumption that assessee had not filed his…

ANUJ CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3453/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…on'ble Bombay High Court order dated 15.12.2021, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa Vs. ACIT reported in 435 ITR 699 and decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon Vs. ITO reported in 408 ITR 268 had quashed the reopening proceedings. The relevant observation of the order of the Mumbai Tribunal are as under:- "3.2. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. From the perusal of the reasons recorded reproduced supra, we find that the reopening was made on the mistaken assumption that assessee had not filed his return of income for A.Y.2…

FALGUNI SAMIR MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, Acit-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abeps 6347 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR

Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, ACIT-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2nd floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. PAN No. ABEPS 6347 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha Shah Revenue by : Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR : Date of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 23/08/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dat…

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 204/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

…he fund had not been withdrawn as on the date of issuance of notice for reopening of assessment. 7. It is a well-settled law that reopening of reassessment on an incorrect assumption of facts is invalid. In the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO [2018] 408 ITR 268 (Guj), the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court struck down the notice issued reopening the assessment on the basis of incorrect set of facts, with the following observations: “12. The Assessing Officer may be correct in pointing out that when the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.50 lakhs but the registering authority has valued the pr…

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 203/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 202/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 201/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

STANDARD TELE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d on incorrect fact cannot lead to valid reason and to the belief that income has escaped assessment: • Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT, (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Del). • Shipra Srivastava & Anr vs. ACIT, (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Del). • Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO, (2018) 408 ITR 268, (Guj). • Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO, (2018) 400 ITR 167(Guj). • Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2014) 360 ITR 427(Guj). • Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom). • Prashant Joshi vs. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom). 6.2 Furthermore, reliance is also placed on the following judicial decisions 8 Standar…

KUNWAR AYUB ALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3137/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ly and therefore, the basic information is yet again wrong and mentioned in reasons without application of mind. 10. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments rendered in the case of Mumtaz Hazi Mohmad Menon (2018) 408 ITR 268 (Guj). As per the ratio of the judgment, the assumption of jurisdiction on the I.T.A No.3137/Del/2018 5 basis of wholly incorrect facts cannot be conferred in law. In this case also, the reasons cited were that the assessee did not file return and the capital gain on sale consideration was not brought to tax which reasons were found to be factua…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2