← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Nimesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai vs. DCIT-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6180/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar. Hence, the AO ought to have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the reopening of assessments of these three years is void ab initio and consequently, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. On merits, the Ld A.R submitted ... Kalyanji Velji HUF and the assessee. He submitted that income tax proceedings were initiated in the hands of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF by reopening its assessments of AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 by issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act, on the basis of very same information recovered from

Nimesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai vs. DCIT-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6179/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar. Hence, the AO ought to have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the reopening of assessments of these three years is void ab initio and consequently, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. On merits, the Ld A.R submitted ... Kalyanji Velji HUF and the assessee. He submitted that income tax proceedings were initiated in the hands of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF by reopening its assessments of AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 by issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act, on the basis of very same information recovered from

Nimesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai vs. DCIT-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6178/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar. Hence, the AO ought to have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the reopening of assessments of these three years is void ab initio and consequently, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. On merits, the Ld A.R submitted ... Kalyanji Velji HUF and the assessee. He submitted that income tax proceedings were initiated in the hands of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF by reopening its assessments of AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 by issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act, on the basis of very same information recovered from

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1565/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were reopened by the AO by issuing notices u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in these three years. As noticed earlier, the addition made in all the five years are based on same set of facts and the assessee is also ... return of income filed by the assessee earlier for AY 2008- 09 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO has reopened the assessment of this year and the reassessment order passed by him is under challenge in this appeal. 3 Anjali Bhoomi Developers, batch (b) The returns

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were reopened by the AO by issuing notices u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in these three years. As noticed earlier, the addition made in all the five years are based on same set of facts and the assessee is also ... return of income filed by the assessee earlier for AY 2008- 09 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO has reopened the assessment of this year and the reassessment order passed by him is under challenge in this appeal. 3 Anjali Bhoomi Developers, batch (b) The returns

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1563/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were reopened by the AO by issuing notices u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in these three years. As noticed earlier, the addition made in all the five years are based on same set of facts and the assessee is also ... return of income filed by the assessee earlier for AY 2008- 09 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO has reopened the assessment of this year and the reassessment order passed by him is under challenge in this appeal. 3 Anjali Bhoomi Developers, batch (b) The returns

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1562/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were reopened by the AO by issuing notices u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in these three years. As noticed earlier, the addition made in all the five years are based on same set of facts and the assessee is also ... return of income filed by the assessee earlier for AY 2008- 09 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO has reopened the assessment of this year and the reassessment order passed by him is under challenge in this appeal. 3 Anjali Bhoomi Developers, batch (b) The returns

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1561/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were reopened by the AO by issuing notices u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in these three years. As noticed earlier, the addition made in all the five years are based on same set of facts and the assessee is also ... return of income filed by the assessee earlier for AY 2008- 09 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO has reopened the assessment of this year and the reassessment order passed by him is under challenge in this appeal. 3 Anjali Bhoomi Developers, batch (b) The returns

M/S. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumararvind Bansal, Vs. Ito, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpb8185E

For Appellant: Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149ASection 68

notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.06.2022 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee on the validity of reopening of assessment are allowed. 7. Since, reopening of assessment has been quashed, the adjudication of the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature

Atul Finlease, Jamnagar vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 875/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.875/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Atul Finlease. Vs. The Dcit Circle-2(1), C/O Atul Automotives, Rajkot Jamnagar Jamnagar Highway, Hapa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfa3518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :21/01/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :23/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming reopening of Assessment on the basis of details received from investigation wing without making any inquiry. 2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming order passed

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. The assessee, inter alia, is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. We heard the parties on this legal issue. 2 3. The assessee company is India‟s largest Engineering and Construction Company. It also manufactures electrical and electronic ... year under consideration was completed by the AO on 05-12-2006 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26-05-2008, i.e., within four years from the end of the assessment year. 4. The reasons

Late Chhotalal Vallabhadas Doshi L/H. Heir Smt. Prabhavatiben Chhotalal Doshi, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

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

ITA 698/RJT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.698/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Chhotalal Vallabhdas Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar. (Legal Heir Smt. Prabhavatiben Chhotalal Doshi). 505 Ajitnath Apartment, Near Indraprasth Tower, Jamnagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpd9371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :23/12/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 24/07/204, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 22/03/2016 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal By Contending That No Response Has Been Received From Assessee Although The Response Has Been Submitted Through Samadhan.Faceless.Appeal@Incometax.Gov.In As There Was No Income Tax Registration Due To Death Of The Assessee I.E. Chhotalal Doshi On Ita-698/Rjt/2024 (Ay-2008-09) Late Chhotalal Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

possession of Assessing Officer as Reopening was merely based upon information received from ADIT (Investigation). Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment. 4. Learned AO erred in law as well as on facts in not providing complete copy of reasons recorded for reopening u/s 148 and no proper ... opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant during assessment proceedings. Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment. 5. The notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act is improper and without jurisdiction as it is issued by obtaining sanction of JCIT as per section

M/S. Vimoni India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6978/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Vimoni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 17 (1), 3-D, Vandana Building, New Delhi. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaacv3859K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anirudh Saran Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date Of Order : 22.01.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anirudh Saran Singh, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 43(8)

Income-tax (Appeal) is bad in law and in facts. 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment despite the fact that no fresh material was available with the AO warranting issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 2.1 That ... disposed off. He submitted that the reasons recorded in the notice u/s 154 are exactly similar to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. He brought to our notice Annexure-1 submitted which is an approval form for initiating the proceedings u/s 148 submitted by the AO before the ACIT

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee. The reasons recorded in the present case at best can be treated to be reasons to suspect which is not sufficient for reopening the assessment_u/s_148 of the Act. The 10 ITA No. 1100/JPR/2024 Tej Singh Sinsinwar, JAIPUR. requirement of application of mind is missing in the present ease ... 1331/Del/2015, held that “9. As it is manifest from the reasons recorded by the AO that the AO proposed to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of information received that the assessee deposit cash amount of Rs.6 lac in the bank account

ITO Ward 9(3), Pune vs. Shri Agrasen Maharaj Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay Ram DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A(2)(d)Section 250

already made against that ROI for the same AY and informed reason for change of PAN, I am of the opinion that reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 in the name of old PAN AAJCS0457K is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the grounds of appellant ... AAMAS4875Q the assessee is filing the regular income-tax returns. In the light of these facts, the ld.CIT(A) held that reopening of assessment proceedings is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Revenue

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147

issue of building maintenance charges was discussed in detailed by the Appellant's assessing officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings and thus, reopening the assessment on this ground is merely a change in opinion. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre erred ... addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore, now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment without any tangible material, based on the same information/material which was available before him during the regular assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is seeking

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7(1)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Modern India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 4132/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68Section 69

assessee has indulged in bogus transactions through commodity trading in both the assessment years under dispute. Based on such information, the AO reopened the assessments u/s. 147 of the Act. In course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish all supporting ITA No. 4131 & 4132/Mum/2024 ... have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the reasons recorded while reopening the assessments for both the years under consideration, it is the very clear that the basis of reopening is the report received from DDIT (Inv.) Wing which, in turn, is based on report

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7(1)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Modern India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 4131/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68Section 69

assessee has indulged in bogus transactions through commodity trading in both the assessment years under dispute. Based on such information, the AO reopened the assessments u/s. 147 of the Act. In course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish all supporting ITA No. 4131 & 4132/Mum/2024 ... have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the reasons recorded while reopening the assessments for both the years under consideration, it is the very clear that the basis of reopening is the report received from DDIT (Inv.) Wing which, in turn, is based on report

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

fails. 8.1 The appellant's next issue is that the A.O. considered the subject matter in question in the limited scrutiny and therefore reopened the assessment due to simple change of opinion. It is important to determine if the A.O. formed any opinion on the issue in question ... failed to apply his mind to the relevant material in making the assessment order, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and reopen the assessment by taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 147. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that fresh application of mind

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45

served on the appellant. The appellant company submitted its ITR & Audit statement on 02.12.2015. During the course of the assessment proceedings, reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act were given to the CA & AR of the appellant company on 22.12.2015 as per request ... Later on, on 28.01.2016 at the time of hearing of the case, CA & AR Shri Ashok Patil appeared and raised objections against reopening of assessment which was duly disposed of on 28.01.2016. The CA & AR of the appellant submitted the reply on 17.02.2016 in response to the questionnaire dated