Nivi Trading Limited v. Union of India

375 ITR 308High Court2015#3301 most cited

What is Nivi Trading Limited v. Union of India authority for?

A reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from another authority's report or solely on a proposal for further verification; the Assessing Officer must form their own independent belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India · section 147 · section 148 · borrowed satisfaction · own satisfaction · reason to believe · escaped assessment · reassessment notice · assessment procedure · income tax act

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 92

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentsection 131(1)first proviso to section 147section 80hlive linkmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 148(2)sanctioning authority

Judgments citing Nivi Trading Limited v. Union of India

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…inst the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Bom) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the judgments mentioned supra, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for verification of facts/information…

Income Tax Officer 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manhattan Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R
Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) (Bombay HC) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi HC) 8. Swatik Safe Deposit & Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (265 Taxman 164) (Bombay HC) 7 M/s. Manhattan Impex Pvt. Ltd. 9. NuPower Renewable Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT WPNo.3618 of 2018 dated 07.03.2019 (Bombay HC) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefor…

Smt. Praveen Sewak Nayyar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 977/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

…approved by a series of judgments of various High Courts as well as the Tribunals. 5. In this regard, the Ld.A.R. brought my attention to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) - whether mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of Sec.47(iii), would not enable Revenue to resort to Sec.147 of the Act and it is also held yes. Discussion given in Para 26 of the Judgment is relevant and the same is thoroughly relied upon by the Ld.A.R Subseq…

Im.Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As M/S.Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…. (Now known as M/s. Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.) 4. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) 5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) 6. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) 7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the assumption of jurisdiction…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Khyati Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed

ITA 4710/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh , Jm Dcit, Cir. 6(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Khyati Realtors Pvt.Ltd R.No.522, 5Th Floor 301/68, Manek Bhuvan 1St Hindu Colony Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aacck4422B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM DCIT, CIR. 6(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Khyati Realtors Pvt.Ltd R.No.522, 5th Floor 301/68, Manek Bhuvan 1st Hindu Colony Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 PAN/GIR No.AACCK4422B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri. B. Yadagiri Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Date of Hearing 17/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.4710/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2008-09 arises out of the order by the ld. Com…

Tumkur Dcc Bank Limited, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed and the appeal filed for AY

ITA 1/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri P.K Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT (DR)
Section 37(1)

…further investigation in the matters and to verify the details. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that reopening is not valid. In this regard he placed reliance on the following case law. a) CM Mahadeva Vs. CIT, 404 ITR 747 (Kar) b) Nive Trading Ltd., Vs. UOI, 375 ITR 308 (Bom) 42. We have heard ld DR and perused the record. We have noticed that the return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. From the reasons recorded by the AO, which is extracted in the assessment order, we noticed that the assessee has claimed certain deductions which were not allowed in the earlier years. During…

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 172/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…gji & Co. & Ors. Vs. ITO & Asstt. Year 2006-07 3 Anr. (322 ITR 90) - copy enclosed Page 171 to 175 Gujarat High Court in case of Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT - 356 ITR 0481 page 184 to 192 > Bombay High Court in case of Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. UOI - 375 ITR 308 page 193 to 205 Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company - 321 ITR 526 page 206 to 212 Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Sahil Knit Fab - 249 CTR 454 page 213 to 223 Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Sonal Arpit Doshi vs. ITO - decision dated 21.10.2015inITANo. 366/Ahd/2015 page 224 to 227 Ahmedabad ITAT in case of ACIT vs.…

Capri Global Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 170/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Jitendra Jain/Mahesh Rajora-Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 68

…pany and also to justify the share premium commanded by the assessee from the investor company. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncement to support various submissions: - i) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Navi Trading Ltd. Vs Union of India [375 ITR 308] ii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B.Wadkar [190 ITR 166] iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [346 ITR 361] iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT Vs Century Textiles & Industries Limited [167 DTR (Bom) 105] v) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Unitech Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT [240 Taxman 70] vi) Hon’b…

Shivalik Kinema Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 400/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.” 8. The ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Nivi Trading Ltd. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom.) (HC) wherein it was held that “If more details were sought or some verification was proposed that could not be a substitute for reasons which led AO to believe that an income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Revenue does not state that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All that Revenue desires is verification of…

Jay Ma Durga Buildtech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2720/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

For Appellant: Arvind Sandhe, ARFor Respondent: Bhupendra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 92ASection 92E

…case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional CIT 368 ITR 1 (Bom.). 15. Now, we will examine the case law cited by learned Counsel for the assessee of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom.) has considered the provisions of section 147 of the Act and held that, “has reasoned to believe” are stronger the word “is satisfied”. Hon’ble High Court observed that the believe entertained by the AO must not be arbitrary or irrational but it must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on the reasons which are relevant and mate…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

Pooja R Mahtaney, Mumbai vs. It 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 146/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.146/Mum/2013,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 Ms. Pooja R. Mahtaney, Ito-7(3)(2), C/O Kabra Asociates, 204, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Niranjan, 99 Marine Drive, Vs Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan:Aahpm3042R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S.Kabra (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54E

…aterial came to his knowledge subsequently and thus the re- opening is bad-in-law. Ld. AR of assessee relied upon the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332 and In Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom). Ld. DR for the Revenue has argued that reasons have correctly been recorded by the AO. The assessee has not filed any objection that the re-opening of the assessment was invalid. The assessee failed to show any documentary evidence about the payments of management fees. Ld. DR for Revenue further strongly supported the orders of authoritie…