What is Vishnu Borewell v. ITO authority for?

The validity of reopening an assessment or the sufficiency of evidence for reassessment proceedings must be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. This case supports the principle that such actions cannot be based on mere suspicion.

How many judgments cite Vishnu Borewell v. ITO?

86 judgments on BharatTax cite Vishnu Borewell v. ITO (333 ITR 237), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vishnu Borewell v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 142(1), Section 133(6).

Vishnu Borewell v. ITO (333 ITR 237)

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “S.M.C.” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4908/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shyam Products Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम 206 – Hans Bhawan, Ward : 23 (3) Vs. 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. PAN : AADCS0943E A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.4907/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Optimist Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम 206 – Hans Bhawan, Ward : 19 (2) Vs. 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, N…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Mr. B. Nagendra, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 1st Cross, Nehru Colony, of Income Tax, Near Railway Track, Circle 2(3), Bellary. Bellary. PAN: ADKPN 9671M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.S. Prashant, CA Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These t…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Mr. B. Nagendra, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 1st Cross, Nehru Colony, of Income Tax, Near Railway Track, Circle 2(3), Bellary. Bellary. PAN: ADKPN 9671M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.S. Prashant, CA Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These t…

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…, then he would have certainly asked the AO to correct the mistakes committed by him in the reasons recorded. For the above proposition of mechanical approval, he relied on the following decisions:- 13 (A) Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs . ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.): 51 DTR 51 (Del.); (B) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.); (C) United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.); (D) CIT Vs Goyanka Lime 237 Taxman 378(SC); (E). CIT Vs N.C. Cables, 98 CCH 18 (Del); and (F) Chuga Mai Rajpal, 79 ITR 603(SC) Larger Bench. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that peru…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…P(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); vi. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); vii. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors(2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del)"; viii. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del); 26. He further submitted that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is clearly applicable as first assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was already made on 31st December 2009 and more than four years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year at the time of invoking jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. Assessee has…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Tyrone Patrick बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer Lemos Ward 2(1)(2), Aayakar Vs. 28, Gyanodaya Housing Bhavan, Race Course, Society, Fatehgunj, Vadodara - 390007 Vadodara - 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAPPL0277M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant…

Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7243/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…ches have considered the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The above decision is contrary to the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT, 287 ITR 494, Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 333 ITR 237, PCIT vs. NC Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11, United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors., 258 ITR 317. He submitted that none of these decisions were cited and considered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sonia Gandhi. Relying on various decisions cited in the case law compilation, the coordinate Benches after considering the decision in t…