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)

ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Surat vs. Kushal R Jain, Surat

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

ITA 575/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…d that not only there existed, new information with the Assessing Officer from the creditable sources, but also that he has applied his mind and recorded the reasons. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, while considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, he…

ITO, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Gautamchand Chunilal Jain, Surat

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

ITA 504/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…d that not only there existed, new information with the Assessing Officer from the creditable sources, but also that he has applied his mind and recorded the reasons. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, while considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, he…

Gautamchand Chunilal Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 420/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…d that not only there existed, new information with the Assessing Officer from the creditable sources, but also that he has applied his mind and recorded the reasons. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, while considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, he…

Shri Manish Agarwal, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee’s the appeals in ITA No

ITA 256/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.206 & 256/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5)Room No. 115, 1St Floor, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Raghunathpura, Main Road, Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395003 Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5), Aayakar Bhawan, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Majura Gate, Surat Raghunathpura, Main Road,Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afwpa 2629 A (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ve gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and observed that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment ITA No.206, 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya. beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify…

Shri Ramprakash V. Vijayvergiya, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee’s the appeals in ITA No

ITA 253/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.206 & 256/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5)Room No. 115, 1St Floor, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Raghunathpura, Main Road, Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395003 Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5), Aayakar Bhawan, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Majura Gate, Surat Raghunathpura, Main Road,Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afwpa 2629 A (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ve gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and observed that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment ITA No.206, 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya. beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat vs. Shri Manish Agarwal, Surat

In the result, assessee’s the appeals in ITA No

ITA 206/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.206 & 256/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5)Room No. 115, 1St Floor, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Raghunathpura, Main Road, Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395003 Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Manish Agarwal 3(1)(5), Aayakar Bhawan, 204, Vaibhav Chambers, Majura Gate, Surat Raghunathpura, Main Road,Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afwpa 2629 A (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ve gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and observed that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment ITA No.206, 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya. beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…information. However, the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which weighed with the AO in coming to the belief, cannot be investigated, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer &Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456: "the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information." 6.3.7 Further, every disclosure is not and cannot be treated as true a…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…information. However, the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which weighed with the AO in coming to the belief, cannot be investigated, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer &Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456: "the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information." 6.3.7 Further, every disclosure is not and cannot be treated as true a…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…information. However, the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which weighed with the AO in coming to the belief, cannot be investigated, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer &Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456: "the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information." 6.3.7 Further, every disclosure is not and cannot be treated as true a…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…information. However, the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which weighed with the AO in coming to the belief, cannot be investigated, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer &Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456: "the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information." 6.3.7 Further, every disclosure is not and cannot be treated as true a…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected

ITA 1366/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1364 &1366/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

…plied has mind and recorded the conclusion that the purchases claimed were non-genuine and therefore bogus, (clearly meaning that what was disclosed was false and untruthful). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, h…

M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected

ITA 1364/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1364 &1366/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

…plied has mind and recorded the conclusion that the purchases claimed were non-genuine and therefore bogus, (clearly meaning that what was disclosed was false and untruthful). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, h…

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ranty and no details were filed and hence, it cannot be said that there is true disclosure. The ld.CIT-DR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., vs. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 and Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, 203 ITR 456. 9. We have gone through the original assessment order, the reasons recorded and the details filed before AO during the course of original assessment proceedings vide letters dated 13.10.2011 & 19.12.2011. We have also gone through queries raised by AO during the course of original assessment proceedings vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. We note…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Turtle Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3

…and intelligible nexus between the reasons & the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly 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 and 203 ITR 456 (SC) 10. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor can anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever [2004] 267 ITR 332 has inter-alia, observes…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2308/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 28

…iculars in support of its claim and hence, the reopening of assessment beyond four years is within the ambit of sec. 147 of the Act. 2.3 The ld CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO - 203 ITR 456, wherein it was held that, “where transaction itself on basis of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, mere disclosure of that transaction at time of original assessment proceedings, cannot be said to be a disclosure of ‘true' and ‘full’ facts in case and AO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a ca…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1707/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 28

…iculars in support of its claim and hence, the reopening of assessment beyond four years is within the ambit of sec. 147 of the Act. 2.3 The ld CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO - 203 ITR 456, wherein it was held that, “where transaction itself on basis of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, mere disclosure of that transaction at time of original assessment proceedings, cannot be said to be a disclosure of ‘true' and ‘full’ facts in case and AO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a ca…

Kalyan Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Kalyan Jewells P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 49, Super Mall Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Lal Bungalow, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aacck 4717 B

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 179(1)Section 234

…decision can not, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before Their Lordships. As for her reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456], that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO "rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material fa…

Jai Jagannath Mover P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 206/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147

…1 Jai Jagannath Mover P. Ltd, AY: 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 206/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jai Jagannath Mover Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-11(4), (PAN: AABCJ6221E) Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (virtual) 09.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2022 For the Appellant Shri K. M. Roy, CA For the Respondent Smt. Archana Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata dated 13.12.2019 for AY 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised additional gr…

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain from exercising the power. In the instant also, the case of the petitioner was fairly considered and thereafter the above decision is taken." (emphasis supplied). 4.12 In Phool Chand Bajrang Lai v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456, Hon'ble apex court has held as under (page 477): "From a combined review of the judgments of this court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his pos…

D.C.I.T.Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal Sale Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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…

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

ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Surat vs. Kushal R Jain, Surat

ITO, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Gautamchand Chunilal Jain, Surat

Gautamchand Chunilal Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

Shri Manish Agarwal, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

Shri Ramprakash V. Vijayvergiya, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat vs. Shri Manish Agarwal, Surat

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

Shri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Turtle Ltd., Howrah

DCIT, Chennai vs. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai

Kalyan Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Jai Jagannath Mover P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

D.C.I.T.Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal Sale Co.Ltd., Kolkata