What is Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

How many judgments cite Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO?

396 judgments on BharatTax cite Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (203 ITR 456), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 68.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (203 ITR 456)

Rathod Jewellers, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1385/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ove the escapement is not the concem at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal and Anr vs. ITO and Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Bombay High Court in the case of Bright Star Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 231 (Bom), and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmiraj Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 495 (Guj), have held that at the stage of initiation of reassessment the AO is not required to have conclusive evidence that income chargeabl…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shahnaz Husain, vs. JCIT Special Range-10, W-61, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi - 110048 (PAN : AABPH4011P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/NFAC…

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shahnaz Husain, vs. JCIT Special Range-10, W-61, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi - 110048 (PAN : AABPH4011P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashok Malik, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Munish Rajani, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/NFAC…

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 410/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Gemco International cuke The ITO Vs. 3950, Lal Haweli, MSB Ka Rasta Ward 2(1) Johari Bazar, Jaipur 302 003 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 9238 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR…

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. Reliance is hereby placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAYMOND WOLLEN MILLS LTD. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC) and ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC), PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO & ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2008] 302 ITR 275 (MAD.).It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Purshotam Dass Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) that the information received from the Deputy Director (Inv.) constitutes val…

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

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

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…e to assume valid jurisdiction u/s 148 is the existence of cogent material that would lead a person of normal prudence, acting reasonably, to an honest belief as to the escapement of income from assessment." Also, in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lai vs. 1TO 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "An assessment completed u/s 143(3) but later on Information received which was indefinite, specific and reliable and the AO duly recorded the reasons for his belief that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed particulars of his income and hence there was escapement of income. Held that the reop…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…s the obligation of the assessee to disclose the material facts or what are called primary facts. It is not a mere disclosure but a disclosure which is full and true. Referring to the decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal [Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC); (1993) 4 SCC 77.], it has been highlighted that a false disclosure is not a true disclosure and would not satisfy the requirement of making a full and true disclosure. The obligation of the assessee to disclose the primary facts necessary for his assessment fully and truly can neither be ignored nor watered down. All the requirements stipul…

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Patel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), KR Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the Bombay High Court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under: "where the AO purports to exercise power under s.147 within a period of four years from the end of the relevan…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…he belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the AO could not have reason to believe that any part of the assessee had escaped assessment refer 203 ITR 456 (SC) also). 18. Here it is important to understand one more aspect that information adverse may trigger “reason to suspect”, then the AO to make reasonable enquiry and collect material which would make him believe that there is in fact an escapement of income. The statutory mandate/condition precedent for an AO to exercise his power is that he sh…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…he belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the AO could not have reason to believe that any part of the assessee had escaped assessment refer 203 ITR 456 (SC) also). 18. Here it is important to understand one more aspect that information adverse may trigger “reason to suspect”, then the AO to make reasonable enquiry and collect material which would make him believe that there is in fact an escapement of income. The statutory mandate/condition precedent for an AO to exercise his power is that he sh…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…he belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the AO could not have reason to believe that any part of the assessee had escaped assessment refer 203 ITR 456 (SC) also). 18. Here it is important to understand one more aspect that information adverse may trigger “reason to suspect”, then the AO to make reasonable enquiry and collect material which would make him believe that there is in fact an escapement of income. The statutory mandate/condition precedent for an AO to exercise his power is that he sh…

Rajesh Khanna, Neelkanth Plywood, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 62/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

…urisdiction for Re-Assessment is being challenged. It may be pointed out that the AO acquires the jurisdiction to Re- open Assessment U/s.147 on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming into his possession (Phool Chand BajrangLal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). 7.6 Section 147 of the Act provides for reopening of Assessment based on information received from, other authorities, wherein it has been found that the assessee had been a beneficiary of bogus transactions. It has held in various judgments that such reassessment is valid and justified (Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann…

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 230/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

…urisdiction for Re-Assessment is being challenged. It may be pointed out that the AO acquires the jurisdiction to Re- open Assessment U/s.147 on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming into his possession (Phool Chand BajrangLal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). 7.6 Section 147 of the Act provides for reopening of Assessment based on information received from, other authorities, wherein it has been found that the assessee had been a beneficiary of bogus transactions. It has held in various judgments that such reassessment is valid and justified (Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann…

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 550/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke Ram Ratan Jangir Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vill and Post Rampura Dabri, Ward-7(2), Ward No. 4, Amer Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPJ 9614 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ R…

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Putel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woollen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K. R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the Bombay High Court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under: "where the AO purports to exercise power under 1.147 within a period of four years from the end of the releva…

Jameson Abraham, Kollam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…found as not accounted for. Sections 68 to 69D may need to be examined for their applicability. The assessee, after all, cannot be heard to say ‘you accepted my falsehood earlier, and are therefore bound by it now’ (refer:Phool Chand Bajranj Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)). The principle at work here is that one cannot by his own wrong prejudice the other (B.M. Malani v. CIT[2008] 306 ITR 196, 207 (SC)). Two, the assessee cannot assume a position contrary to it’s accounts, which is also the purport of Explanation 1 to s. 41(1) (also see CIT v. TV Sunderam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC)). Jameson…

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal

Section 234BSection 68

…sessing Officer and there is material on the basis of which the notice was issued. As has been held in Phool Chand Bajrang the notice was issued. As has been held in Phool Chand Bajrang the notice was issued. As has been held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), Bombay Pharma Products [1999] 237 Lal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), Bombay Pharma Products [1999] 237 Lal [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), Bombay Pharma Products [1999] 237 ITR 614 (MP) and Anant Kumar Saharia [1998] 232 ITR 533 ITR 614 (MP) and Anant Kumar Saharia [1998] 232 ITR 533 ITR 614 (MP) and Anant Kumar Saharia [1998] 232 ITR 533 (Gauhati), the…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…ue to assume valid jurisdiction u/s. 148 is the existence of cogent material that would lead a person of normal prudence, acting reasonably to an honest belief as to the escapement of income from assessment." Also, in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- “An assessment completed u/s. 143(3) but later on information received which was indefinite, specific, and reliable and the AO duly recorded the reasons for his belief that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed particulars of his income and hence there was escapement of income. I.T.A. Nos.775…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…ue to assume valid jurisdiction u/s. 148 is the existence of cogent material that would lead a person of normal prudence, acting reasonably to an honest belief as to the escapement of income from assessment." Also, in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- “An assessment completed u/s. 143(3) but later on information received which was indefinite, specific, and reliable and the AO duly recorded the reasons for his belief that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed particulars of his income and hence there was escapement of income. I.T.A. Nos.775…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…the provisions of explanation (1)" 6. Whether on fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in quashing the reassessment proceeding in light of the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 4 SCC 77, wherein it was held "Under section 147 cases having wilfully made false or untrue statements at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to turn around and say you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing ? 10. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the as…

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

What is Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

Rathod Jewellers, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2(3), Pune

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range -10, New Delhi, Delhi

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

Rajesh Khanna, Neelkanth Plywood, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Jameson Abraham, Kollam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai