N.D. Bhatt, IAC v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn

216 ITR 811High Court1995#4474 most cited

What is N.D. Bhatt, IAC v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn authority for?

Reasons for reopening a case under Section 148 must be recorded by the assessing authority before issuing the notice. Only these recorded reasons can be used to validate or invalidate the notice.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

N.D. Bhatt · IAC v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn · Section 148 · Section 148(2) · reasons for reopening · notice under section 148 · recorded reasons · arbitrary exercise of powers

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 151Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

books or books of accountsection 2(12a)section 2(40)section 92esection 148(2)section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49approval under section 151dumb documentsfresh tangible materialsection 55

Judgments citing N.D. Bhatt, IAC v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ded must either stand or fall on the reasons as recorded alone and nothing else. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held that: “It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible.…

Ravi Mohan Gehi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…direction of the other person: i. Rainee Singh, 125 TTJ 816 (Del.) ii. Atul Jain 212 CTR 42 (Del.) iii. George Williamson Ltd. 258 1TR 126 (Gau.) iv. Mahesh Gum & Oil Industries 292 ITR 397 (Raj.) v. Chuggamal Rajpal 79 ITR 603 (SC) vi. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Born.) vii. Bawa Abhay Singh 253 ITR 83 (Del.) viii. United Electrical Co.(P.) Ltd. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) ix. Ganga Saran & Sons. (P.) Ltd. 130 IFR 1 (SC) X. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 268 ITR 322 (Bom.) g. Your appellant very strongly submits that the entire addition made without any basis in the in the manner stated above in violation of 19 I.T.A. No.…

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 1606/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…er not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income- Tax after recording reasons. In the present case sanction has been taken from the Commissioner. A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in N.D. Bhatt IAC of IT versus IBM World Trade Corporation, [1995] 216 ITR 811(Bom.) has held as under: "It is also well-settled that the reasons for reopening are required to be recorded by the assessing authority before issuing any notice under section 148 by virtue of the provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice Page 15 of…

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 1605/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…er not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income- Tax after recording reasons. In the present case sanction has been taken from the Commissioner. A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in N.D. Bhatt IAC of IT versus IBM World Trade Corporation, [1995] 216 ITR 811(Bom.) has held as under: "It is also well-settled that the reasons for reopening are required to be recorded by the assessing authority before issuing any notice under section 148 by virtue of the provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice Page 15 of…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…u) 556 : (1998) 232 ITR 533 (Gau); Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO (1999) 153 CTR (MP) 350 : (1999) 237 ITR 614 (MP); H.A. Nanji & Co. vs. ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal); N.D. Bhatt, IAC & Anr. vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1993) 115 CTR (Bom) 103 : (1995) 216 ITR 811 (Bom); Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 190 CTR (Bom) 166 : (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom); Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 : (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 ( Delhi); GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2002) 257 ITR 702 (Delhi) Sarthak Securities Co. (…

M/S Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…ITA No.3052/Del./2013 8. While deciding that matter (Sarthak Securities Ltd.), their Lordships looked into the following cases and a passage from N.D. Bhatt, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax & Another. v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation, [1995] 216 ITR 811 (Bombay) : “It is also well-settled that the reasons for reopening are required to be recorded by the assessing authority before issuing any notice under section 148 by virtue of the provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reason so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under section 148. In…