← 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

Chhering Tomdan, Spiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 170/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chhering Tomdan, Vs. The Ito, Village Khurik, बनाम Rampur Bushahr, Po Rangreek, Himachal Pradesh Rangrik B.O. Khurik (78), Lauhaul & Spiti, H.P. 171114 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bhxpt8803P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Shri Viren Sibbal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 156Section 250Section 69A

absence of valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That reopening of assessment is barred by limitation prescribed under section 149 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the reassessment proceedings

Kausalya Agro Forms & Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 676/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issued. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the appellant requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reasons were communicated to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant objected to the reopening proceedings and filed its objections. After considering the objections given by the assessee, Assessing ... assessee is collecting advances from customers and paying interest, whereas diverting funds for non-business purpose. Based on specific information, the AO reopened the assessment, and thus, there is no merit in the argument of the counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment is invalid

Kausalya Agro Forms & Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 675/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issued. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the appellant requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reasons were communicated to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant objected to the reopening proceedings and filed its objections. After considering the objections given by the assessee, Assessing ... assessee is collecting advances from customers and paying interest, whereas diverting funds for non-business purpose. Based on specific information, the AO reopened the assessment, and thus, there is no merit in the argument of the counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment is invalid

Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 672/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

second issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.1 and 2 of assessee’s appeal is relating to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since we have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, grounds 1 and 2 taken ... assessee relating to the issue of validity of reopening of assessment, becomes infructuous and thus, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee have been dismissed as infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited ITA 667/Hyd/2020

Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 667/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

second issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.1 and 2 of assessee’s appeal is relating to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since we have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, grounds 1 and 2 taken ... assessee relating to the issue of validity of reopening of assessment, becomes infructuous and thus, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee have been dismissed as infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited ITA 667/Hyd/2020

Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 666/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

second issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.1 and 2 of assessee’s appeal is relating to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since we have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, grounds 1 and 2 taken ... assessee relating to the issue of validity of reopening of assessment, becomes infructuous and thus, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee have been dismissed as infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited ITA 667/Hyd/2020

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reopening of assessment as invalid in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Brief facts emanating from the record are that the assessee filed his original ... reopening fall in the category of ‘change of opinion’. 9. The ld. DR Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT submits that the Assessing Officer rightly reopened the assessment, as having fresh material. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras also did not entertain the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reopening of assessment as invalid in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Brief facts emanating from the record are that the assessee filed his original ... reopening fall in the category of ‘change of opinion’. 9. The ld. DR Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT submits that the Assessing Officer rightly reopened the assessment, as having fresh material. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras also did not entertain the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

erroneous and that the Assessee had correctly claimed the eligible exemption u/s.11. The Ld.AO also erred in law in reopening the assessment on issues already considered in the original assessment. It is submitted that first proviso to section 147 of the Act is relevant which is reproduced as follows: “Provided ... assessment for that AY. It may be seen that the aforesaid first proviso places severe restriction on the power of the AO to reopen an assessment order passed under section 143 / 147, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, except in cases where Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maneckji Cooper Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection

ITA 3554/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit (Exemption)-2(1), Maneckji Cooper Education Trust, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Telephone Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (W), Vs. Exchange Building, Dr. Gd Mumbai-400049. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0173 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jay Bhansali
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

determining total income of the assessee at 2016 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.2.24 crores. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by is Rs.2.24 crores. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by is Rs.2.24 crores. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice ... assessee has filed cross objection, wherein it has challenged the The assessee has filed cross objection, wherein it has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. Since we have upheld the relief granted validity of reopening of assessment. Since we have upheld the relief granted validity of reopening of assessment

Pozhaniappan Malliga, Namakkal vs. ITO, Namakkal

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1295/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1295/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Pozhaniappan Malliga Ito बनाम/ 21/20-A, Perumpalipatty Elur Ward -3 Vs. Post Namakkal – 637 018 Namakkal "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqcpm-9517-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 44ASection 69A

against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR has taken a legal ground that the approval for reopening of assessment has been given by Ld. Pr. CIT, Salem on 21.03.2018 in respect of 401 cases as recommended by Range Head. Giving approval ... reopening the case of the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that as long as there is due application of mind, the reopening of assessment could not be faulted with. The argument that approval could not be given to such a large number of cases in a single

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

that if change of opinion concept is given a go by, that would result in giving arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments. It would in effect be giving power to review which he does not possess. The Assessing Officer has only power to reassess ... review. If the concept of change of opinion is removed as contended on behalf of the Revenue, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. The concept of change opinion is an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. As held

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 550/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

that if change of opinion concept is given a go by, that would result in giving arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments. It would in effect be giving power to review which he does not possess. The Assessing Officer has only power to reassess ... review. If the concept of change of opinion is removed as contended on behalf of the Revenue, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. The concept of change opinion is an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. As held

Virender Singh Asst Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Uday Achyuth Kamath, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act reopening the assessment. The assessee filed the return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section ... perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee has filed writ petition with Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the reopening of assessment on the ground that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the period of limitation as per section

Gaurav Dugar, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 948/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147wSection 148Section 263Section 43CSection 52(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144(8). The word "Dropped" is never used in reassessment order. It is noted that except objection for reopening of assessment, the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim in the course of reassessment proceedings even after communicating the reason for reopening

Sachin Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4408/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not taking cognizance of the stated legal position that Assessing Officer was bound to provide reasons within reasonable time for which he took six months and did not dispose of the objections filed by the assessee before completion of

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in Assessment Year: 2012-13 confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2019 by the Assessing Officer, which is not as per provisions of law, clearly outside ... Supreme Court had laid down the procedure to be adopted in case of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In that case notice under Section 148 of the Act read with Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the assessing officer calling upon the assessee

Alka Commodities Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2983/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)] and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.) 2014-15. The assessee has raised grounds relating to validity of reopening of assessment and additions made by the AO. 2 2. The assessee is a commodity broker. It filed NIL return of income for the year under ... Ld.CIT(A), yet the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the grounds of the assessee. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment for the year under consideration on the reasoning that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from the entities operated by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt

Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

Assessing Officer has not verified the issue of accommodation entries amounting to Rs.47,50,000/-, It is submitted that the case being reopening of assessment had reopened on ground of fictitious loan transactions of Rs 47,50,000/- and after verification of objection filed against such reopening and after

Deep Energy Resources Ltd. (Formerly Deep Industries Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of Ld

ITA 461/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the reopening of an assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the challenge to reopening of assessment by holding that given the facts before the Assessing Officer, he had valid reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 31.03.2016. 2. The assessee in ITA No.775/Chny/2018 has raised the following grounds of appeal: - ‘’Reopening of assessment 1.1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening, overlooking the fact that AO assumed jurisdiction to reopen only on the basis of disclosures in the published ... Balance Sheet, which cannot be considered as fresh information in his possession warranting reopening of assessment. Taxability of Unreconciled entries in NOSTRO accounts 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the taxability of net un-reconciled entries in NOSTRO accounts outstanding for more than 5 years credited