← 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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

Whether, on facts, there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and, therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated merely on basis of change of opinion deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 10] [In favour of assessee ... assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of reassessment proceedings. The explanation further provides that this would be so notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Rajuri Steel and Tmt Bars Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1298/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1298/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rajuri Steel & Tmt Aurangabad. Bars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase- Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.32/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1298/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajuri Steel & Tmt Bars Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase-Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Date Of Hearing 05.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that during the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has held in para 6 of the assessment order that the appellant did not submit any reply/submission in response to notice ... Assessing Officer. At the same time, we also find that the letter dated 25.03.2022 was not a letter of objection to the reassessment proceedings but it was simply a request letter for providing the material so that the assessee can submit his objections to the 8 C.O. No.32/PUN/2024 reassessment proceedings

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

perverse or unsustainable in law, in any manner and the same would be a possible view keeping in mind the assessee’s submissions during reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction

Dcitcc6.2, Mumbai vs. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 974/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied M/s. Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited with the objections, then ... given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. Further where the jurisdictional issue such as reopening of the case is involved, the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned

Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited, Bombay Mutual Building, Fort vs. ACIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 709/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopening notice under section ... given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. Further where the jurisdictional issue such as reopening of the case is involved, the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned

Kandy Gold Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2562/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S Kandy Gold Pcit, Rohtak Private Limited, R R Singla & Co., 106- Vs. 107, Maharaja Agrasen Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Aadcr4278F

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

High Court i.e. “how share premium received by the appellant in the year 2013-14 can be taken as escaped income to initiate reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2014-15”. 6. The Learned authorized representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order

Himar Specialty Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 4519/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 147Section 148Section 35A

Madras) for the proposition that non-disposal of objection of appellant by the Ld. AO through a speaking order would not make reassessment proceedings ab initio void and SLP filed against this decision was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide 256 Taxman ... decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (supra) which is upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently. It was held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated for making any inquiry or verification. In the present case it is clear from the reasons recorded from reopening the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

addition of commission expenses on estimated basis in the original assessment proceedings and addition of sale value of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd., in the reassessment proceedings. 17. In the cross objection, the assessee has challenged the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment. Since

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lalbaug vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1487/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

addition of commission expenses on estimated basis in the original assessment proceedings and addition of sale value of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd., in the reassessment proceedings. 17. In the cross objection, the assessee has challenged the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment. Since

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4326/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, inter-alia, submitted that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings that income has escaped assessment due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9. On the other hand ... assessment year, notice under ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 6 section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, the AO recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment: - “REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT 28.1.2003 1. On perusal of the records

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4325/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, inter-alia, submitted that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings that income has escaped assessment due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9. On the other hand ... assessment year, notice under ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 6 section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, the AO recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment: - “REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT 28.1.2003 1. On perusal of the records

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4235/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, inter-alia, submitted that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings that income has escaped assessment due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9. On the other hand ... assessment year, notice under ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 6 section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, the AO recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment: - “REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT 28.1.2003 1. On perusal of the records

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4234/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, inter-alia, submitted that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings that income has escaped assessment due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9. On the other hand ... assessment year, notice under ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 6 section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, the AO recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment: - “REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT 28.1.2003 1. On perusal of the records

The Imperial Condominium, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 19(3) The Imperial Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Condoninium Matru Mandir, Grant Level -2, Fm Office, The Road, Mumbai – 400007. Imperial Tower, Bb Nakashe Marg, Tardeo, Mumbai – 400034. Pan/Gir No. Aadat4393D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

valid and is accordingly held as such. In the net result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the reassessment proceedings stands quashed with no orders as to cost. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Cen Circle 7(2), Mumbai vs. Hegde and Hedge Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are

ITA 2441/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, | find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai vs. Hegde and Hegde Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 2438/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, I find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai vs. Hegde and Hegde Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2437/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19
Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, I find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai vs. Hegde and Hegde Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are

ITA 2436/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, | find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Cent.Cir 7(2), Mumbai, Mumabi vs. Hegde and Hegde Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are

ITA 2434/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, | find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Cent Cir. 7(2), Mumbai vs. Hegde and Hegde Pharmaceutica LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 2433/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 37(1)

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, the retracted statements filed by the appellant, the detailed submissions made in the course of the reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, I find a subtle disconnect between the statements recorded during the course of survey and the actual facts