“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

Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi

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

ITA 1882/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyagracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Pvt. Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Central Circle 2, Plot No.19, Veer Savarkar Block, Delhi. Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aaccd5744M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-23, New Delhi Dated 29.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Notice U/S 148 Issued In This Case Is Bad-In- Law, Illegal, Without Jurisdiction & Barred By Limitation And, Therefore, The Said Notice U/S 148 Along With Assessment Order Passed On The Foundation Of Such Notice Are Liable To Be Quashed & Cit(A) Erred In Not Holding So. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Are Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Including The Specific Provisions Of Section 147 To Section 151 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore, The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated Along With Assessment Order

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific provisions of section 147 to section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore ... reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order 2 passed are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred

Suhas Hirachand Mehta, Dapoi, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

ITA 1070/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Suhas Hirachand Mehta At Post-Jalgaon, Dapoli, Ratnagiri-410571. Pan: Akspm5272G. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

only trigger issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and can elementarily support the invocation of reassessment proceedings subject to forming of belief thereon upon conclusive enquiry thereunto. 6. In the present case, we prima-facie find that, the reason to believe that the cash deposit escaped assessment

Tadikonda Vamsi Mohan Krishna, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Ward-1(1), Guntur is invalid and consequently the same is liable to be quashed and consequently the reassessment proceedings are also liable to be quashed as void-ab-inito.” 4 4. The only contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] is that the Ld. AO has mentioned about

Jitendra Kumar Jain(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee and thus proceeded to imposed the penalty by ignoring the fact that the assessee has made disclosure of income during the reassessment proceedings in the present case. Therefore, the addition is only on the basis of admission made by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings and the AO nowhere

Income Tax Officer, Rawatbhata Road vs. Borekheda Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Head Office Near Dwarkadis

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 599/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

year under consideration without complying with the provisions of first proviso thereto is NOT tenable in law and resultantly the validity of consequential impugned reassessment proceedings u/s 148 culminating in passing the Impugned order cannot be sustained- in the facts and circumstances of the 4 ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA ... issuance of Notice u/s 148 on 19-03-2021 w.r.t. issues relating to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and the subject reassessment proceedings were completed at an assessed income of Rs.1,73,91,029/- after denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Bench noted that the ld.AR

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 41(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc vs. Jaj International, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2147/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty

Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee took an additional ground of appeal to the CIT(A) the assessee took an additional ground of appeal to the effect that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO effect that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO effect that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO u/s.148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Jaj International, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2146/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty

Section 143(3)Section 153C

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1691/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

without jurisdiction, bad in law and void reopening is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. initio. The Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction ... quashed quashed. In ground No. 3, the Ld. counsel for the . In ground No. 3, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings as being assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings as being assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Kelvinator India Ltd.2 to support the contention that the reassessment proceeding was a case of change of opinion. Several other grounds were raised touching upon the merits of the matter ... learned Tribunal after taking note of the factual position, more particularly, that the addition of Rs. 59,42,709/- which was made in the reassessment proceedings having been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.07.2019, the reassessment on the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3614/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material to the possession ... assessee filed return of income on 19.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs.20,98,970/-. Thereafter statutory notices were issued and reassessment proceedings were commenced. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,16,00,000/- for disallowance of amortization expenses in respect of goodwill while computing total

DCIT CC -4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3610/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 69C

erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated ... total income at Rs.20,98,970/-. Thereafter statutory notices were issued and hereafter statutory notices were issued and hereafter statutory notices were issued and reassessment proceedings were commenced. In the reassessment reassessment proceedings were commenced. In the reassessment proceedings were commenced. In the proceedings, proceedings, proceedings, the the the Assessing

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 69C

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 69C

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C