Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

350 ITR 120High Court2013#4682 most cited

What is Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. authority for?

For reopening an assessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material, not merely a change of opinion based on a subsequent court decision that aligns with the assessee's original return.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ratna Trayi Reality Service · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · change of opinion · tangible material · reason to believe · assessment u/s 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

change of opiniontangible materialreason to believereopening of assessmentsection 142(1)section 147section 148section 14section 143(3)total incomepersoncompany

Judgments citing Ratna Trayi Reality Service (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 356 ITR 493 (Guj.). (ii) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Devki Nandan The Income Tax Officer, Bindal, Delhi – 110 006. PAN AHEPB8698Q Ward – 46 (3), C/o. Shri Kapil Goel, vs Advocate, F-26/124, New Delhi. Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate. For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…record. It is well settled Law that validity of reassessment proceedings is to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for belief. We, rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indivest PTE Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). The assessee has filed copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment at Page-23 of the Paper Book, which reads as under : “Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle, Rohtak. 1. Name and address of the M/s. KFA Foods (India) assessee Ltd., 2. Status Pvt. Ltd., Company 3. Assessment Year 2007-2008. Reasons in b…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…record. It is well settled Law that validity of reassessment proceedings is to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for belief. We, rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indivest PTE Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 120 (Bom.). The assessee has filed copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment at Page-23 of the Paper Book, which reads as under : “Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle, Rohtak. 1. Name and address of the M/s. KFA Foods (India) assessee Ltd., 2. Status Pvt. Ltd., Company 3. Assessment Year 2007-2008. Reasons in b…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Snow Valley Construction Mateiral P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4377/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari and Ms. Rituja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…of the AO and referred to the case of Rajesh Jhaveri. The Authorised Representative(AR) argued that reasons recorded by the AO are not valid, that bad debts had to be allowed. He referred to the cases of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (268 ITR 332)and Indivest Pte. Ltd(350 ITR 120). 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the return of income, filed by the assessee,was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act, that the notice under section 148 was issued within the period of four years, that the AO had provided the reasons recorded by him to the assessee, that as per the re…

Sobha Suburbia Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 627/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar N, Addl.CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 148

…38 TTJ 698 (Kol) and submitted that the decisions of Hon'ble High Court on the point is binding in nature. The ld. AR has then relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indivest Pte. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (2013) 350 ITR 120 (Bom) and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reiterated the proposition that in the absence of any tangible material, notice issued for reopening does not fulfil the requirement as laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561(SC). The ld. AR has also relied up…