← 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

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Act, addition made u/s.68 of the Act and disallowance of interest expenditure. 7. Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of grounds ... appeal raised by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment with the following observations: - “6.3.3 However, where the proceedings were originally completed u/s 143(1) of the Act, or where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Act, addition made u/s.68 of the Act and disallowance of interest expenditure. 7. Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of grounds ... appeal raised by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment with the following observations: - “6.3.3 However, where the proceedings were originally completed u/s 143(1) of the Act, or where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Act, addition made u/s.68 of the Act and disallowance of interest expenditure. 7. Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of grounds ... appeal raised by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment with the following observations: - “6.3.3 However, where the proceedings were originally completed u/s 143(1) of the Act, or where initial proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and action

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

even date i.e. 17/02/2021. The Revenue in all the three appeals have raised identical grounds of appeal. The issue, validity of reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years is common in all these appeals. Since, the grounds of appeal and the issue in appeals are identical, these appeals ... delay in filing of the appeal. 5. Shri J.P. Bairagra appearing on behalf of the assessee made three fold submissions assailing reopening of assessment. The first argument of ld. Authorized 3 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) Representative for the assessee is that the assessment for assessment year 2010-11 has been reopened

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

even date i.e. 17/02/2021. The Revenue in all the three appeals have raised identical grounds of appeal. The issue, validity of reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years is common in all these appeals. Since, the grounds of appeal and the issue in appeals are identical, these appeals ... delay in filing of the appeal. 5. Shri J.P. Bairagra appearing on behalf of the assessee made three fold submissions assailing reopening of assessment. The first argument of ld. Authorized 3 ITA NO.798/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) Representative for the assessee is that the assessment for assessment year 2010-11 has been reopened

Shri Rohinton Cyrus Malesra, Mumbai vs. The ITO -19(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1598/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Rohinton Cyrus Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1) Malesra Matru Mandir, A-201, Simla House, Tardeo Opp L.D.Ruparel Marg Mumbai – 400007 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpm5502K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anil Gala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

material purchased from Newspark Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Nakoda Marbles has been sold and profit thereon is offered to tax. Reopening of Assessment 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income

Dr. Nirmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4825/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4825 & 4826/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11 & 2013-14) Dr. Nirmal Jain Vs. Ito, Circle – 11(1)(3) 2403/2404, Tower-B, Room No. 202, Oberoi Woods, Oberoi Aayakar Bhavan, Garden City, Goregaon Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopj1273 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Neena Jeph.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29-.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai For A.Y.2010-11 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act & For A.Y.2013-14 U/Sec143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Neena Jeph.Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23(1)(a)

facts narrated therein. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act made by the A.O 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... filed the return of income with a total income of Rs. 12,61,236/- on 24.04.2017 and requested for supply of reasons for reopening the assessment and the same were provided to the assessee and the objections were filed. 3. Subsequently, the notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trust Circle- 3(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Baldwin Boys High School, Bangalore

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

before this Tribunal. 5.1 For the year under consideration, the respondent assessee had not filed its return of income. Thereafter, the Ld.AO reopened the assessment by issue of the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 08/01/1996 and 30/03/1998 calling for the return of income. The respondent assessee had filed ... being the deletion of addition, by challenging the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) which was delivered against him on the legal issue of reopening of assessment. Respectfully following the above view, we admit the Application dated 02/01/2019, filed under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules 1963. Page

ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Goapla Krishna Papers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

scrutiny assessment, I do not find any merit in the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by the Ld. AO. The reopening of assessment on the same reason as were recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 263 is not permissible, particularly in the absence of any new material ... decision of Madras High Court in the case of Ramchandra Hatcheries, 305 ITR 117 observed that the AO has no jurisdiction'to reopen the assessment u/s 147, so as to circumvent the order of the CIT which has become final. As there was no new facts coming to the notice

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 appeal, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. 1. Reopening of Assessment The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening of assessment. In the facts and the circumstances ... ought to have held that the action of the A.O. in reopening the assessment, as bad in law. 2. Disallowance of expenditure The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in following his predecessor and in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000 claimed as expenditure by the appellant

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 appeal, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. 1. Reopening of Assessment The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening of assessment. In the facts and the circumstances ... ought to have held that the action of the A.O. in reopening the assessment, as bad in law. 2. Disallowance of expenditure The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in following his predecessor and in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000 claimed as expenditure by the appellant

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 appeal, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. 1. Reopening of Assessment The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening of assessment. In the facts and the circumstances ... ought to have held that the action of the A.O. in reopening the assessment, as bad in law. 2. Disallowance of expenditure The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in following his predecessor and in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000 claimed as expenditure by the appellant

M/S. Opto Circuits (India) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2323/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2323/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

pursuance of directions given by Ld. DRP. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following 3 issues:- a) Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act b) Transfer pricing adjustments relating to payment made for services received. IT(TP)A No.2323/Bang/2016 M/s. OPTO Circuits (India

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

Index Securities and Research Pvt. Ltd., during FY 2009-10 which is nothing, but, an accommodation entry, recorded the following reasons to reopen the assessment u/s 147:- “ As per the information received from ADIT(Inv), Unit-5(3), New Delhi vide letter No.ADIT(Inv.)/Unit-5(3)/Asharam/2016-17/278 dated ... formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. Sufficiency of such information cannot be gone into while deciding the issue of validity of reopening. The Assessing Officer can also not make enquiries as no proceedings were pending before him for the relevant assessment year. In the above view

Tech Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6573/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 6573/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Tech Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacm-3484-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cir. 2(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 6573/Mum/2019 This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/09/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr.Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds Of 2 Appeal Assailing Jurisdiction Assumed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short 'The Act') & Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. At This Stage He Would Be Confirning His Submissions On The Additional Grounds Raised.

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

under normal provisions and Rs.1301,87,29,580/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Vide same letter, the assessee requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reasons were provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19/07/2018. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... 26/09/2018 made a request to the Assessing Officer to furnish additional information with regard to the customer/party ,mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer without providing additional information to enable the assessee to identify the party /customer proceeded 3 to make assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7008/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: S.A. Dhyani
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

Appeal filed by the Assessee) Ground No. 1 Reopening in bad in law: “1. The ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment vide .notice u/s. 148 dtd: 30/01/2014 for the A.Y: 2010-11 without appreciating that original assessment was completed ... thus reopening in based on mere change of opinion on same set of facts which was duly disclosed in the assessment. 2. The reopening of assessment is based on audit objection dtd: 21.11.2013 which clearly reveals that reopening is based on direction of revenue audit and not independent mind

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the assessee furnished the details called for from time to time during ... reasons recorded vide letter dt.18.07.2018. The assessee vide reply dt.16.11.2018 objected to the reassessment proceedings and sought for the material relied on to reopen the assessment proceedings. Disregarding the assessee's request, the AO issued a notice dt.16.11.2018 proposing to make addition of Long term capital gains earned from sale

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the assessee furnished the details called for from time to time during ... reasons recorded vide letter dt.18.07.2018. The assessee vide reply dt.16.11.2018 objected to the reassessment proceedings and sought for the material relied on to reopen the assessment proceedings. Disregarding the assessee's request, the AO issued a notice dt.16.11.2018 proposing to make addition of Long term capital gains earned from sale

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the assessee furnished the details called for from time to time during ... reasons recorded vide letter dt.18.07.2018. The assessee vide reply dt.16.11.2018 objected to the reassessment proceedings and sought for the material relied on to reopen the assessment proceedings. Disregarding the assessee's request, the AO issued a notice dt.16.11.2018 proposing to make addition of Long term capital gains earned from sale

DCIT, 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Singhvi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

case of Soignee R Kothari vs DCIT (supra), which is also distinguishable as this is related to Writ petition against reopening of assessment wherein their Lordships have not expressed any opinion on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The undisputed facts