How many judgments cite Narayanappa v. CIT?

187 judgments on BharatTax cite Narayanappa v. CIT (63 ITR 219), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Narayanappa v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 250, Section 143(1).

Narayanappa v. CIT

63 ITR 219Supreme Court of India1967#503 most cited

What is Narayanappa v. CIT authority for?

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narayanappa v. CIT · 63 ITR 219 · section 153D · administrative act · quasi-judicial act · approval from higher authority · opportunity of hearing · JCIT approval · judicial scrutiny · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 250 Section 143(1)Section 153A Section 153D

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 43(3)section 147(a)section 151(1)section 158bb kelvinator section 153b within four years section 158bc section 151(2)live link section 158bg

Judgments citing Narayanappa v. CIT

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…vardhan Constructions – ITA No. 5912/Mum/2017, ITA No. 5523/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 5913/Mum/2017 A.Y 2011-12, A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14 Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) and S. Naryanappa Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC). In the backdrop of his aforesaid submissions, it was averred by the ld. D.R that the A.O had validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, and it was absolutely incorrect on the part of the assessee‘s counsel to canvas that its concluded assessment was reopened on the basis of a mere ‗change of opinion‘. 16. We have heard the authorised r…

Smt. Rupal Dhupelia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 675/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.674 & 675/Kol/2011 Assessment Year:2002-03 Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 4099 F] Dy. Commissioner of बनाम / Smt. Rupal Dhupelia Income Tax, Central V/s. C/o Manoj Dhupelia & Co. Circle-III, 18, Rabindra Nilhat House, 6th Floor, 11 Sarani, Poddar Court, 5th Floor, Kolkata-01 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.ADSPD 3509 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan. Ad…

Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 674/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 69

Satya Kumar Sakhuja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -45(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. SurbhiFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 SATYA KUMAR SAKHUJA, Vs. ITO, WARD-45(3), C-41, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 056 (PAN: AAYPS1101L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Surbhi Goyal, CA Department by : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi on 14.01.2019 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the si…

Shri Jasbir Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB”, BENCH AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.426/ASR/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Jasbir Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o Surinder Mahajan & Ward-1(2), Associates, Jalandhar (Punjab). Chartered Accountants, 74, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar-144 001 (Punjab). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACAPS 8461 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA. Respondent by : Sh. Charan Dass, DR. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 28/11/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2020 आदेश / O R…

Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1231/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…form the basis of re-opening. Assessment and its reasons which would evidence the linkage/nexus to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. This is a settled position as observed by the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, that it is open to examine whether the reason to believe has rational connection with the formation of the belief. To the same effect, the Apex Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of belief i.e. there must be a live…

Rajesh Ladhani, Faizabad vs. DCIT CC, Agra

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…bunal. 6.4. The Department has sought to distinguish the order dated 18th September 2019 passed by this Bench in the cases of Shri Saurabh Agarwal & Ors Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Agra (supra) on the strength of following Judgments: (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 27.03.2015 pas…

Anurag Mittal, Firozabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

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

ITA 136/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…er dated 18th September 2019 passed by this Bench in the cases of Shri Saurabh Agarwal & Ors Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Agra (supra) on the strength of following Judgments: ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 9 Asst. Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 26.03.2015 pas…

Oleofine Organics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee with regard to limited purpose of Ground No

ITA 5831/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Oleofine Organics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Pvt.Ltd. Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2) 101/B, Fine House Aayakar Bhavan Anandji Lane New Marine Lines Off. M.G. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1352Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ngs in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law. (See observations of this court in the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)and S.Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) while dealing with the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). Hence we hold that the reliance placed on Explanation 1 to section 147 by the ld DR also does not advance the case of the revenue. In view of our aforesaid detailed observations on the validity of reopening and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…he expression 'reason to believe' does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, the belief must be held in good faith; it cannot merely be a pretext—Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), S. Narayanappav. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) and Y. Rajanv.lTO [1970] 77 ITR 839(AP).The belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour—SheoNath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), Asoke Kumar Sen v. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 707 (Delhi), Manikonda Ve…

Pelican Credits & Scurities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

ITA 2413/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…form the basis of re-opening Assessment and its reasons which would evidence the linkage/nexus to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. This is a settled position as observed by the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, that it is open to examine whether the reason to believe has rational connection with the formation of the belief. To the same effect, the Apex Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have rational connection with or relevant ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 bearing on the formation of belief i…

Bla Power Holding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271Section 68Section 69C

…. also relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd. 93 taxman.com 163 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court after following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Narayanappa vs. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) and ITO vs. Lakhmani Marvel Dass (1976) 103 ITR 407(SC) held that reasons to believe must have a rational connection with or have relevant bearing on formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In other words there must be live link of the material coming to the notice of the AO and formation of belief regarding…

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…her assistance by way of disclosure . It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. 7. In the matter of S. Narayanappa and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [1967] 63 ITR 219, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the decision in the matter of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), has observed as under : 'But the legal position is that if there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any fact, which could have a material baring on…

Sri Udit Kumar Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…1 Shri Udit Kumar Dugar, AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 799/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri Udit Kumar Dugar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-36(4), (PAN: ACWPD5996Q) Kolkata Appellant Respondent For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 03.05.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5712/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…endment made in 1948. In that year the words "definite information" were replaced by the words "reason to believe". While expatiating on the new words, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through V. Ramaswami, J., in CIT vs S. Narayanappa (1965) 63 ITR 219 opined as under:- "Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in goodfaith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the…

Dy. C.I.T. - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dipti Dattaraj Salgaonkar, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7403/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, D.R

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

…cer is not expected to hold an enquiry, with the participation of the assesses, and come to a final determination that the amount in question represented the income of the assessee: CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC) and Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219. He is required only to reach prima facie or tentative belief. The formation of the belief must be based on some valid material It cannot be disputed that the information received from a governmental agency constitutes valid material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could form a tentative or prima facie belief regarding escapement of in…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 947/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…er assistance by way of disclosure . It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. 7. In the matter of S. Narayanappa and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [1967] 63 ITR 219, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the decision in the matter of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), has observed as under : 'But the legal position is that if there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any fact, which could have a material baring on…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 946/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Beigh, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 538/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(2)Section 44ASection 69

…t being trite with the said reason should have a direct, live, and rational nexus with the reason to believe (as to the relevant income escaping assessment), the law on which is well-settled (refer, inter-alia, decisions in S. Narayanappa & Ors. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC); Sheo Nath Singh v. AA CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC); and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC)). The decisions relied upon by the AO, which stand perused, nowhere contradict the proposition on the basis of which the reassessment is being held as without jurisdiction in the present case. Rather, the same, in ratio, support what has…

M/S Nice Telecom, Mansa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…apement of income, having a live, rational, and direct nexus with the information or the material on record. The proposition is too well settled to require elaboration, and toward which we may though cite some decisions, as S. Narayanappa & Ors. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC); Sheo Nath Singh v. AA CIT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC); and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). In the instant case, we find the same as completely missing. There is, to begin with, no reference to the same in the reasons 5 Nice Telecom v. ITO recorded (PB pg. 9). On what basis, then, does the AO state of the repair expenditure i…