Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.9.i Indian Oil Corpn v. ITO

39 ITR 575High Court1960#24932 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.9.i Indian Oil Corpn v. ITO

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

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

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e "reason to believe" and observed that "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn.” Indian Oil Corpn. v ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) Manikonda Venkata Narasimham v CIT (1960) 39 ITR 575 (AP) Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers v IAC (1995) 212 ITR 185 (Guj.) The provisions of section 147 empower the Assessing Officer, to reopen an assessment if he has “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment. The important words under section 147 are ‘has reason to believe’ The words “reason to believe” suggests that the belief must b…

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…ng as reason to suspect. The ratio has been laid down by a plethora of judgments some of which have been mentioned below:- Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. 1.9.i Indian Oil Corpn. v ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) 1.9.ii Manikonda Venkata Narasimham v CIT (1960) 39 ITR 575 (AP) 1.9.iii Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers v IAC (1995) 212 ITR 185 (Guj.) 1.10. It reiterated that the sole basis, emerging out of the reasons recorded, of reopening the case of the assessee was the incriminating documents found during the course of search on the premises of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. 1.11. Reassessment pursuant to material fou…

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…onable grounds and that the ITO may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour—SheoNath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), Asoke Kumar Sen v. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 707 (Delhi), Manikonda Venkata Narasimhamv. CIT [I960] 39 ITR 575 (AP), R.S. ChiranjiLal& Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 407 (Punj.), Birds Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 285 (Cat.) and Bhagwan Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CST [1970] 25 STC 420 (All) The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the ITO, the forum of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the…