← 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

K H Gurunath Lr of Late K L Srihari, Bangalore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1268/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Karthik Devara
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246

served on the LR( Legal Representative) of the assessee after recording reasons, which is incorporated in reassessment order. The LR filed objections for reopening the assessment. Later on a notice u/s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee. On perusal of the documents it was noticed that assessee ... that Shri K.L. Ramachandra who is also one of the beneficiary approached the jurisdictional High Court in WP No.3955/2018 filed on 24.1.2018 against reopening of assessment u/s. 147 and the High Court on 20.2.2018 observed as under:- “4. Though normally against the re-assessment order, a regular Appeal would have

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, Mumbai

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: 08/07/2024
Section 69A

reproduced as under: reproduced as under: Reopening is bad in law: Reopening is bad in law: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment for 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment for 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment ... dated 25/07/2022 is bad in law. s 148 dated 25/07/2022 is bad in law. 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment due to 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment due to 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment

Shrikant Finconsery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 1558/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

Dying and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- 6.2. Vide communication, dated 21/04/2021, reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished to the Appellant. The Appellant, vide letter dated 01/05/2021, filed as objections to reopening of assessment wherein it was specifically stated that the Appellant’s Company ... averments made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant are supported by the documents on record. On perusal of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, we find that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information that the Appellant had received bogus/accommodation entries in respect of loan

Shrikant Finconserv Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 1557/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

Dying and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- 6.2. Vide communication, dated 21/04/2021, reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished to the Appellant. The Appellant, vide letter dated 01/05/2021, filed as objections to reopening of assessment wherein it was specifically stated that the Appellant’s Company ... averments made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant are supported by the documents on record. On perusal of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, we find that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information that the Appellant had received bogus/accommodation entries in respect of loan

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

about meagre profits against huge turnover. But from these details received by the AO of the assessee from Investigation Wing Member before reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee ... escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice u/s 147”. In other words, reasons have to be recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

about meagre profits against huge turnover. But from these details received by the AO of the assessee from Investigation Wing Member before reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee ... escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice u/s 147”. In other words, reasons have to be recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

about meagre profits against huge turnover. But from these details received by the AO of the assessee from Investigation Wing Member before reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee ... escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice u/s 147”. In other words, reasons have to be recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3477/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148A

Delhi and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.) 2016-17. In this appeal, the assessee, inter alia, is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 21-07-2016, declaring a total income ... Investigation wing reported that the transactions carried on by the parties in the above said scrip are bogus in nature. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟)on 09-04-2021. 3. With regard to the reopening

Abhishek Gordhanlal Trivedi, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1841/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.I. ChokseyFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

much higher than the income declared by the assessee. Hence, the AO entertained the belief that there was escapement of income. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment by issuing of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. The AO noticed that the assessee has initially made investment of Rs. 36.00 lakhs ... income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the validity of reopening of assessment. With regard to addition relating to loan amount of Rs. 36,47,377/- received by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 9.50 lakhs

Manish Jagdish Joshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Drp)-3, Mumbai

ITA 1617/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57(2)(vii)

following grounds: – “1.Reopening of assessment is bad in law: Manish Jagdish Joshi. 1. The learned CIT(DRP-3) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.06.2021 i.e. after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18 without ... wrongly invoked in AY 2017-18.” 3. In the present case, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act on various grounds and has also challenged the addition made by the AO under section

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

provided along with letter dated 25.12.2021 by the Assessing Officer (AO). Thereafter, the Assessee filed its objections on 18.01.2022 against the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the objections filed by the Assessee were disposed of. 3.3 Thereafter, statutory notices were issued to the Assessee

Moul Shree Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 426/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Moul Shree Jhunjhunwala,……………….……Appellant 58/3, Kutir Udyog Kendra, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Acqpj6330E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 23Rd, 2024 O R D E R

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

taken eighteen grounds of appeal. However, her grievances revolve around two issues, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment; 2 Moul Shree Jhunjhunwala (b) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,17,74,670/-, which was added ... This return was accepted under section 143(1). There was no scrutiny assessment in her case. The ld. Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 29.03.2019. The assessee is challenging this reopening of assessment

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 20(1), Mumbai vs. Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3182/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Harshad Mehta V/S. National Faceless Appeal 16/40, 10Th Floor, बनाम Centre, Delhi Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Jignesh Harshad Mehta Income Tax, Circle 20(1) बनाम 16/40, 10Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Piramal Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Central, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

grossly erred in re-opening assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reopening of assessment is without jurisdiction, illegal and infractions ab-inito. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Commissioner

Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2680/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Harshad Mehta V/S. National Faceless Appeal 16/40, 10Th Floor, बनाम Centre, Delhi Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Jignesh Harshad Mehta Income Tax, Circle 20(1) बनाम 16/40, 10Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Piramal Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Central, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

grossly erred in re-opening assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reopening of assessment is without jurisdiction, illegal and infractions ab-inito. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Commissioner

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), 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

companies. For the purpose of this reopening, these details are not relevant because ultimately ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment on the strength of transactions with these companies. He might have satisfied with the explanation of the assessee submitted in response to the show ... made separately. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of revenue authorities raised multiple submissions qua challenging the reopening of assessment. Before adverting to the reasons, he brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Limited

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

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

companies. For the purpose of this reopening, these details are not relevant because ultimately ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment on the strength of transactions with these companies. He might have satisfied with the explanation of the assessee submitted in response to the show ... made separately. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of revenue authorities raised multiple submissions qua challenging the reopening of assessment. Before adverting to the reasons, he brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Limited

Ecgc Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the A.O. has erred "in reopening the assessment and passing the Assessment order, which is illegal and bad in law 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance ... purpose of assessing income as regards the transfer of shares. What is sought to be done by the Assessing Officer now is a reopening of assessment after four years, on a mere change of opinion. The non-furnishing of the form is only an excuse given by the Assessing Officer

Sunstar Mercantile Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-11(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3874/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sunstar Mercantile Company Ltd. Ito Ward 11(2)(4) Bunglow No. 2, Kia Park, Mumbai Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 053

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not commenting on validity of reopening of assessment. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in completing

Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 16/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

assessee's failure to disclose all necessary facts. The relevant extracts of the “Reason to Believe” is reproduced for ready reference: “Reasons for reopening the Assessment Shailesh S Jhaveri (ADTPJ0210B) - A.Y. 2011-12 A search and survey action was carried out at the residence and offices of Shri Shirish Chandrakant ... assessee. 27. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that he shall not be pressing for ground related to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds relating to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act are hereby dismissed

Shailesh S. Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 15/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

assessee's failure to disclose all necessary facts. The relevant extracts of the “Reason to Believe” is reproduced for ready reference: “Reasons for reopening the Assessment Shailesh S Jhaveri (ADTPJ0210B) - A.Y. 2011-12 A search and survey action was carried out at the residence and offices of Shri Shirish Chandrakant ... assessee. 27. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that he shall not be pressing for ground related to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds relating to challenge to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act are hereby dismissed