Ram Bai v. CIT

236 ITR 696Supreme Court of India1999#20017 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57(iii)Section 115JB
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Ram Bai v. CIT

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment did not constitute "reason to believe" within the meaning of that expression as employed in Section 147, inasmuch as such belief is unsupported by any reason (i.e., cause or justification) [ Ram Bal v CIT [1999] 236 ITR 696 (SC)]. (vi) Having regard to the fact that the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year referred to in the first proviso to Section 147 had expired on 31th March, 2013, the Jurisdiction of the Ld AD to assess or reassess any Income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment stood ousted by that first proviso. (vii) A…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment did not constitute "reason to believe" within the meaning of that expression as employed in Section 147, inasmuch as such belief is unsupported by any reason (i.e., cause or justification) [ Ram Bal v CIT [1999] 236 ITR 696 (SC)]. (vi) Having regard to the fact that the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year referred to in the first proviso to Section 147 had expired on 31th March, 2013, the Jurisdiction of the Ld AD to assess or reassess any Income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment stood ousted by that first proviso. (vii) A…

Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2414/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…nt ground by invoking deeming fictions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act de hors the cause of action manifested under s. 148(2) of the Act. This view finds support from plethora of decision including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bai v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 696 (SC); Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 326 (Cal.). Hence, the additions made by the AO towards deemed income under s.2(22)(e) of the Act, being extraneous to reasons recorded, requires to be struck down on this score itself. 9. Adverting further, there is yet another reason to i…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…g a fresh inference from the same facts and material which was available with the ITO at the time of original assessment proceedings. The two situations are distinct and different. ……..” (vi) Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Bai vs. CIT (236 ITR 696), reiterated the above position that in absence of any fresh tangible material, subsequent assessment cannot be the basis for reopening the assessment for earlier assessment year. (vii) In the instant case, AO had drawn fresh inference on the same set of facts which were available with AO. AO had not referred to any fresh material or informatio…