← All Phrases

“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

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.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT
336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court
398
citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Bharpur Singh, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6(2) Mohali, Mohali

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.226/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Bharpur Singh Ito. Ward No. 6(2), House No. 430 Phase 2 बनाम/ Vs. Mohali. Mohali-160055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abzps-6480-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 28-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

accepted since the assessee was a non-filer. Accordingly, all the legal grounds as urged by Ld. AR stand rejected and the reassessment proceedings are held to be valid in the eyes of law. 6. Having said so, we find that Ld. CIT(A), having not admitted the appeal, should

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Suregaon, Kolpewadi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Vs. Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Suregaon, Kolpewadi, Kopargaon- 423602. Pan : Bdpps0675A Appellant Respondent C. O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1011/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Suregaon, Kolpewadi, Ahmednagar. Kopargaon- 423602. Pan : Bdpps0675A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. Kawdia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating legal ground numbers 2 and 5 pertaining to validity of reassessment proceedings raised before him. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that reassessment proceedings and consequential

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

ITA 847/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

income from operating any infrastructure facility the question whether assessee is a developer or contractor becomes immaterial/irrelevant. In the written submission filed during the reassessment proceedings assessee has referred to CBDT Circular dated 18/5/10 and has stated that the same mentions that the infrastructure developed and handed over

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

ITA 334/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

For Respondent: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

income from operating any infrastructure facility the question whether assessee is a developer or contractor becomes immaterial/irrelevant. In the written submission filed during the reassessment proceedings assessee has referred to CBDT Circular dated 18/5/10 and has stated that the same mentions that the infrastructure developed and handed over