← 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary
Section 147Section 250Section 4

which failed on account of setting aside order of assessment, it would not preclude the Assessing Officer from carrying out exercise of reopening of assessment. It has been held that since the original assessment order was quashed on technical grounds, which means the original order does not survive ... counsel for the assessee had argued that the issues having been examined in the original assessment, the same cannot form the basis for reopening the assessment. Had the scrutiny assessment resulted into an opinion different from the one now propounded by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, this would

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6219/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary
Section 147Section 250Section 4

which failed on account of setting aside order of assessment, it would not preclude the Assessing Officer from carrying out exercise of reopening of assessment. It has been held that since the original assessment order was quashed on technical grounds, which means the original order does not survive ... counsel for the assessee had argued that the issues having been examined in the original assessment, the same cannot form the basis for reopening the assessment. Had the scrutiny assessment resulted into an opinion different from the one now propounded by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, this would

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

pages are missing and even this has not been corrected. 5. Ld AR further submitted that the assessee wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment and for this purpose, he has requested for copy of reasons recorded, which have not been furnished to the assessee. For the assessment years ... down the facts, placing reliance on case laws would have no purpose. The claim of the assessee that he wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment would not survive insofar as there is no ground against the reopening raised before the Tribunal. The claim of ld AR that the assessment

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

pages are missing and even this has not been corrected. 5. Ld AR further submitted that the assessee wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment and for this purpose, he has requested for copy of reasons recorded, which have not been furnished to the assessee. For the assessment years ... down the facts, placing reliance on case laws would have no purpose. The claim of the assessee that he wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment would not survive insofar as there is no ground against the reopening raised before the Tribunal. The claim of ld AR that the assessment

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

pages are missing and even this has not been corrected. 5. Ld AR further submitted that the assessee wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment and for this purpose, he has requested for copy of reasons recorded, which have not been furnished to the assessee. For the assessment years ... down the facts, placing reliance on case laws would have no purpose. The claim of the assessee that he wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment would not survive insofar as there is no ground against the reopening raised before the Tribunal. The claim of ld AR that the assessment

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

pages are missing and even this has not been corrected. 5. Ld AR further submitted that the assessee wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment and for this purpose, he has requested for copy of reasons recorded, which have not been furnished to the assessee. For the assessment years ... down the facts, placing reliance on case laws would have no purpose. The claim of the assessee that he wishes to challenge the reopening of assessment would not survive insofar as there is no ground against the reopening raised before the Tribunal. The claim of ld AR that the assessment

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 9133/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (del.), the Ld. Counsel contended that in the absence of any tangible material whatsoever brought on record, reopening an assessment based on unsupported and generalized information of investigating wing per se is wholly arbitrary exercise of powers and thus untenable. The information provided ... granted a perfunctory approval under Section 151 of the Act in a mechanical manner 14 I.T.A. No.9133 & 7921/Del/2019 enabling the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. Such mechanical approval has also vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act on a standalone basis. 16. We shall address

Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 7921/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (del.), the Ld. Counsel contended that in the absence of any tangible material whatsoever brought on record, reopening an assessment based on unsupported and generalized information of investigating wing per se is wholly arbitrary exercise of powers and thus untenable. The information provided ... granted a perfunctory approval under Section 151 of the Act in a mechanical manner 14 I.T.A. No.9133 & 7921/Del/2019 enabling the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. Such mechanical approval has also vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act on a standalone basis. 16. We shall address

The Amravati People Co-Op Bank Ltd ( Now Merged in the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd), Amaravati vs. D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 80P

note that the assessee vehemently contended that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO to reopen the assessment. The AO did not accept the objections of the assessee and proceeded to complete the reassessment proceedings vide para No. 10 of the assessment order, wherein, he clearly ... which are at page No. 38 of the appeal memo. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee challenged validity of reopening of assessment made thereon but no ground raised in respect of merits of the case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the issue

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC -1(4), Mumbai

ITA 221/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri. Alok Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 35D

issue has came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT upheld the action of the AO of reopening the assessment proceedings stating that "though the assessee claims to 7 M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. have furnished necessary details before the AO at the time ... failure on the part of the assessee to make the full and true disclosure of material facts.” 8. The crux of the reopening of assessment is additions are not made for deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35DD and that the assessee has made a claim towards expenditure incurred

Prabodh Sadashiv Sadavartem(HUF), Nagpur vs. I.T.O.(TDS) Ward -1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 547/NAG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

valid under law in the facts and circumstances of the case. A.Y. 2006-07 9. We note that the assessee challenged reopening of assessment before the AO. The AO discussed the said issue from pages 3 to 9 of the assessment order, wherein, he rejected the objections of the assessee ... assessee vide his letter dated 26/03/2013 had asked for reasons recorded by the AO for issue of notice u/s. 148 for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 06/05/2013 the assessee filed his objections vide letter dated 06/06/2013 against the notice issued

Shri Prabodh Sadashiv Sadavarte (HUF), Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

valid under law in the facts and circumstances of the case. A.Y. 2006-07 9. We note that the assessee challenged reopening of assessment before the AO. The AO discussed the said issue from pages 3 to 9 of the assessment order, wherein, he rejected the objections of the assessee ... assessee vide his letter dated 26/03/2013 had asked for reasons recorded by the AO for issue of notice u/s. 148 for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 06/05/2013 the assessee filed his objections vide letter dated 06/06/2013 against the notice issued

Smt. Pushpa Chhajer, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts action of the AO in reopening the assessment was not valid.” j] In the case of ‘Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO’, 56 DTR 0212 the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that: “Where ... consider the binding decision of law. P.B. Page 230 to 236.” 8. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that the assessee challenged reopening of assessment in Ground No. 1 to 5 and Ground No. 5 to 12 are related to the addition of Rs. 1,99,74,893/- made

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

been established by the assessee company, as per the records.". 4. The assessee was given reasonable time to raise any objections against the reopening of assessment. However, no objections were submitted before the Assessing Officer and accordingly, Assessing Officer proceeded to issue notices ... National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, assessee has filed various grounds of appeal Page No. | 5 M/s. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd objecting to the reopening of assessment and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 12. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the issue raised against

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

that there had been escapement of income of assessee from assessment because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening of assessment was justified. 4. Vishwatej Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Company Circle V(2), Chennai-[2021] 130 taxmann.com 9 (Madras) -Where

Krutika Rajendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Officer under section 68 of the Act and (b) addition made towards estimated expenses in procuring long term capital gains. (c) Validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the above said two issues are stated in brief. The assessee had filed her return of income ... declaring a total income of Rs. 4,08,377/-. Subsequently the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the basis of 2 Krutika Rajendra Jain information received from the investigation wing that a person named Vipul Vidur Bhatt and his group of companies are engaged

Executive Trading Co. Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 281/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

13/03/2020. In response, the Appellant filed return of income on 16/03/2020 declaring ‘Nil’ income and requested for a copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. 3.2. Vide notice, dated 28/01/2021, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act the Appellant was informed about the reasons recorded for reopening ... discharge its obligations to make payments of LC amounts to the banks on account of genuine financial hardships. The Appellant also objected to reopening of assessment and requested the Assessing Officer to drop the reassessment proceedings as the reasons for given for reopening the assessment in view of the aforesaid

Omega Finhold Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1286/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 147Section 148

Investments & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.) vs. ACIT in ITA No.6438/Del/2019 dated 03/05/2023. The Ld. AR also vehemently objected to the validity of the reopening of assessment. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that an information indeed was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department ... following due procedure had sought to reopen the assessment of the assessee as he had tangible information that assessee was the beneficiary of fictitious losses of Rs.32,54,732/- in connivance of the brokers who had misused the CCM facility in F& O segment on NSE in March

Shilpkars Clothing Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshilpkars Clothing Vs. Acit-22(2), Company, 702, Rna Kutir, Room No. 417, 4 Th Floor, 14Th Road, Chembur, Tower No. 6, Vashi Mumbai – 400071 Railway Station Building, Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablfs1537J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharmesh Shah & Jigna Jain Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reopening Of Assessment Was Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases By Working Of Peak Credit Amounting To Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant & Dismissing The Appeal. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete All Or Any Of The Forgoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

raised the following grounds before us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases

Sushil Kaandgul, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 1442/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom.)(HC) which held the reopening of assessment based on incorrect information to be invalid. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adding