Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. ACIT

443 ITR 127High Court2022#9273 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible material first proviso to section 147 live link income escaping assessment borrowed satisfaction tangible material reopening of assessment principal commissioner of income-tax section 148a(d)entry operator reason to believe escapement of income

Judgments citing Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. ACIT

RAJENDRAKUMAR SHRISHRIMAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…(ITA No 2324/PUN/2025) dated 06 January 2026 7. Decision of the Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of ITO v Karia Builders (ITA No 2401/PUN/2024) dated 23 July 2025 8. Decision of the Hon'ble Bom HC in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd v ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 127 dated 15 February 2022 9. Decision of the Hon'ble Del HC in the case of Tia Enterprises 1 (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 63 (Delhi) [26-09-2023] 10. Decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of ITO vs. Tia Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 56 (SC) [13-09-2024] where the SLP is dismissed 11. Decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT (U.P.) vs. NITA RASTOGI, MEERUT (U.P.)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3382/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Acit Vs Nita Rastogi Circle-1(1)(1) 32-C, Janta Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut-250001. Meerut-250002. Pan-Aanpr7715E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 690

…ed to record independent reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment [Para 14] Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 137 taxmann.com 315 (Bombay)/[2022] 287 Taxman 1 (Bombay)/[2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay) [15-02-2022], it was held that In the circumstances, the Revenue is directed to adhere to the following (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment, a copy of the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer for obtaining approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the assessee. This would c…

YUGAL MADHUKAR KHAIRNAR,SATANA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…application of mind by ld.CIT(A). 4.4 It is also observed from the assessment order that reasons recorded were not provided to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay ITA No.1322/PUN/2025 [A] High court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Vs. ACIT 443 ITR 127(Bom) has held as under : “4……………… It will be apposite to quote the following from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 409/[2017] 398 ITR 198 which reads as under : "Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a routine basis, a large number of writ…

SANDIPAN BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 1247/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1247/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman S. Ward-1, Latur. Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Abcpj1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman s. Ward-1, Latur. Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. PAN: ABCPJ1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/06/2025 आ…

SANTOSH CHANDRAHAS WAGHCHAURE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 325/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Santosh Chandrahas V The Income Tax Officer, Waghchaure, S Ward-14(5), Pune. House No.641, Waghchaure Building, Indreshwar Nagar, Indapur, Pune – 413106. Pan: Abqpw7868K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 250

…orded for reopening, though ITA No.325/PUN/2025 [A] the Assessee had asked for it. Ld.AR referred to the email request made by the assessee for reasons. 4.5 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Vs. ACIT 443 ITR 127 gave the following directions : Quote“8. In the circumstances, the Revenue is directed to adhere to the following: (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment, a copy of the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer for obtaining approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the assessee. This would…

POONAM RAHUL ANAND,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2147/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poonam Rahul Anand, V The Income Tax Officer, Anands Plot No.70, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Niwas River View, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422007. Pan: Addpa4704D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 16.07.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 224 Days In Filing The Appeal Against The Asst. Order U/S 147 Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Same Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2147/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poonam Rahul Anand, V The Income Tax Officer, Anands Plot No.70, s Ward-1(1), Nashik. Niwas River View, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422007. PAN: ADDPA4704D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi – AR Revenue by Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 16/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. FUTURA TRAVELS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s has been done by the Ld. Assessing Officer summarily, in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) and the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 127 (Bom). 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On the first issue relating to claim of deduction towards interest on loan to the bank treated as prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 1,41,041/-, it is a fact on record that assessee had obtained a vehicle loan from Bank of India during the financial year 200…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)] - SLP dismissed 9. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 281 CTR 241 (SC), 12 STL Extrusion (P) Ltd [2010 : 333 ITR 269 13. CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. [(2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi)], 14. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2017] 3…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

…on of such report should be enclosed alongwith the reasons. Such document, referred to in the reasons to believe, is mandatorily to be provided to the assessee. 25.1 In “Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others”, 443 ITR 127 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reiterated the position of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in “SABH Infrastructure” (supra). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed the revenue to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while re-opening the assessment proceedings. It was emphasized that…

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

DEEPAK MANAJI BHOSALE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-32(1)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3891/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sdeepak Majaji Bhosale, Vs Ito – 32(1)(4) B-2006, Ekta Bhoomi Kautilya Bhavan, Garden-Iii, Datta Pada G Block,Bkc, Road, Borivali (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400066. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb5184C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs.Tejal Kharikar.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…sued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SABH Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 398 ITR 198 (Delhi) and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Asst. Deepak Manaji Bhosale, Mumbai. Commissioner of Income Tax 443 ITR 127 (Bombay). The impugned order ought to be quashed and cancelled. 9. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. completed the assessment proceeding without affording any opportunity to cross examining the third party, based on whose statement, the alleged addition of Rs.24,00,000/- as been made. Thus non providing of opportunity to cross ex…