Yuvraj v. Union of India

315 ITR 84High Court2009#1403 most cited

What is Yuvraj v. Union of India authority for?

Reassessment under Section 148 is valid and does not constitute a mere change of opinion if the original assessment order demonstrates no application of mind to a specific issue, such as the assessability of capital gains or casual income. In such cases, the Assessing Officer is justified in issuing a notice under Section 148 to address the unexamined income escapement.

81

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Yuvraj v. Union of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · mere change of opinion · no application of mind · escapement of income · reason to believe · capital gains · sale of right to purchase plot · validity of reassessment notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 12

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)mere change of opinionkelvinatorchange of opinionsection 292btangible materialreason to believeborrowed satisfactionescapement of incomesection 292reopening of assessmentsection 29

Judgments citing Yuvraj v. Union of India

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Infrastructure Leasing & Acit-10(1), Financial Services Ltd., The Il बनाम/ Mumbai - & Fs Centre, G. Glock, C-22, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaci0989F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…and detailed information was not provided by the assessee, and the AO did not deal these issues properly while framing the assessment order. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of 4 Infrastructure Leasing Yuvaraj 315 ITR 84, for the proposition that there is no change of opinion on the part of AO. 3.3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel has also made detailed submissions challenging the validity of reopening done by the AO. In nutshell, he has attacked reopening and the ‘‘Reasons’’ recorded by the AO on the following two grounds:- (i) There is a fresh tangible material c…