← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1149/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, CA
Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Cost-to-cost reimbursement in relation to incidental expenses such as port dues, surcharges, demurrage/ detention charges, etc. The Company has been subjected to reassessment proceedings, wherein the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘Ld. FAO’) in the final assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income ... Chennai, India. ii. Cost-to-cost reimbursement in relation to incidental expenses such as port dues, surcharges, demurrage/ detention charges, etc. 12. During the reassessment proceedings the AO held that the payment of freight charges to HSC as above qualifies as Royalty for the use of equipment (ship) under

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

facts. by confirming addition of INR 3,54,82,002, towards free of costs assets received by Appellant from its associated enterprises (`AE'). Reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law 3. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts of the case in upholding reassessment order passed ... been issued beyond four years from the end of the Assessment Year. The assessee, before the CIT(A), had objected to the reassessment proceedings by contending that first proviso to section 147 of the Act has not been satisfied since assessee had made full and true disclosure of all material

Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 772/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ B-406 Surel Apartments Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr.Devashish School Ahmedabad Judges Bungalow Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Awspv 8887 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 22/02/2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Act, By The Ao, Dated 10/12/2019. Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

present case, the AO's failure to provide such reasons despite the assessee's request raises serious doubts about the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 6.2. The addition of Rs.46,50,500/- under Section 69A of the Act was made based on information obtained from the search on J.P. Iscon