← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

ITA Nos.780 to 785/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore ITA Nos.786 to 791/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.19

Interarch Building Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8280/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinterarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-30, Sector-57, Noida, Circle-11(1), Uttar Pradesh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaci0106J

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 80I

before us. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, we have no hesitation to quash the entire reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. AO for more than one reason as stated supra. Even on merits

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad., Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

controversy involved in these appeals whether the Assessing Officer can refer any matter for valuation of the property of an assessee though assessment and/or reassessment proceedings are not pending. The Tribunal is of the view that when the assessment proceedings are not pending the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

controversy involved in these appeals whether the Assessing Officer can refer any matter for valuation of the property of an assessee though assessment and/or reassessment proceedings are not pending. The Tribunal is of the view that when the assessment proceedings are not pending the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

belief. Revisionary proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that the alleged issue has already been examined by the AO in the reassessment proceedings which were initiated solely for the alleged reason which has been mentioned in the show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act. 4. Facts ... pages and also plethora of decisions submitted that in light of the settled judicial precedence assessee is entitled to challenge the validity of the reassessment proceeding in collateral proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act and submitted that the reopening has been carried out after four years from

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

relation to the guarantee fees received from the Indian Subsidiary and the same was produced before the Assessing Officer ('AO') during the course of reassessment proceedings. 2.4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO and DRP erred on facts and failed to appreciate that the guarantee fees received ... Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. The following additional grounds are raised under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963: ’3. Ground 3: Reassessment Proceedings initiated is barred by limitation 3.1 The Ld. AO erred in facts and law without appreciating the fact that the Guarantee fee received

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee filed the objection to the said reasons recorded and the same was disposed off by passing a order dated 15.10.2018. In the reassessment proceeding the ld. AO noted that the assessee did not produce the books of accounts in the earlier scrutiny assessment proceeding and therefore based ... have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in 20 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO such a case - Held, yes - Whether, in view of abovementioned facts reassessment proceedings on basis of subsequent information were justified- held yes. Whereas in the case under consideration there was no further information available with

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2751/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)

hand for AY 2013-14. 28. It is required to be noted that the Apex Court, while enabling the Revenue to restart the reassessment proceedings in Ashish Agarwal (supra), categorically held that the old Section 148 notices were to be treated as show cause notices in terms of Section 148A ... issue any notice under section 148 beyond 31st March 2021 and hence, even the relate back theory of the Revenue could not safeguard the reassessment proceedings initiated after 1st April 2021 for AY 2013-14. 36. Therefore, in the present case, as the foundation of the entire reassessment proceeding

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in violation of the first proviso to section 147. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee- society could not be treated as carrying on charitable activities if it indulged in collection of capitation fee. However, during the course of reassessment proceeding, the assessee- society had given detailed explanations along with supporting documents and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer appeared to have been convinced that the impugned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in violation of the first proviso to section 147. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee- society could not be treated as carrying on charitable activities if it indulged in collection of capitation fee. However, during the course of reassessment proceeding, the assessee- society had given detailed explanations along with supporting documents and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer appeared to have been convinced that the impugned

Mali Ram Yadav, Shahpura vs. ITO, Behror

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

ITA 513/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 69A

other person or other officer is bad-in-law as held in the case of CIT v. Smt. Laxmi Mehrotra [2014] 41taxmann.com 427(All.) Reassessment proceedings in this case have been initiated mechanically on basis of information supplied by Bank. 1.7 The facts of the present case are exactly identical

Rajesh Bhujanga Shetty S, Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 1613/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

therefore the addition of Rs.49,98,578/- is bad in law and ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel thus, made out a case that reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the issue relating to transactions at MCX which has escaped assessment whereas the assessment has been completed by making

Hukam Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 1656/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyahukum Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 43 (1), S/O Shri Sukh Lal, New Delhi. H.No.24, Vpo Khaira, Sought West Delhi, Najafgarh, Delhi – 110 043. (Pan : Bkeps0758N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 18.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 13.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {“Cit(A)''} Has Failed To Appreciate That Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings In The Present Case Is Bad In Law On The Ground That Ld. Ao Did Not Have Reasons To Believe That Any Income Has Escaped To Be Assessed In The Hands Of The Assessee. Though The Assessee Had Filed The Return In Response To Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"), But No Reasons Were Either Provided To The Assessee Nor Extracted In The Assessment Order. There Is No Valid Approval Brought On Record

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {“CIT(A)''} has failed to appreciate that initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is bad in law on the ground that Ld. AO did not have reasons to believe that any income has escaped

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

various aspect of findings in the case of Himanshu Verma Group. In this regard, he filed various proposition for making objections against the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer in Rewin Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO assessee’s case. For the sake of brevity, the relevant propositions are reproduced ... submitted before us various propositions against the maintainability of reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee. We observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO based on the notification from the Investigation Wing, as per which various beneficiaries have taken accommodation entries from the Himanshu

Veenapani Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 193/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito 13(3)(1), Veenapani Investments Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limted, Mumbai.400020. Flat No. 302, B–Wing, Garden Court Co–Op Society Ltd, Amrutwani Road, Bhayender (W), Mumbai-401101. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv1684Q (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

considered grounds of appeal, findings of scrutiny assessment. The assessee has filed the submissions on the disputed issue of validity of reassessment proceedings and unsecured loans referred at Page 3 Para 6 of the order read as under : 6 Veenapani Investments Private Limited 7 Veenapani Investments Private Limited 8 Veenapani

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 305/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

16/PUN/2024, AY 2014-15 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings as also the impugned addition of Rs.1,48,26,460/- u/s 69 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee made detailed ... same, appellant’s claim in this regard holds no ground as the necessary proceedings was duly followed by the AO prior to completing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, hence the ground no. 2 of the appeal is dismissed.” 8. On the issue of addition

Jimit Rajesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

solitary grievance of the Appellant is that the CIT(A) has declined to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order, dated 21/12/2018, passed ... impugned is set aside with the directions to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Learned Departmental Representative had no objections to the aforesaid preposition. Accordingly, the order dated 21/12/2018, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Income-tax Officer, International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") has erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the Appellant. 2. The AO has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and erred in making an addition to the total ... Apex court as extracted below: 8. However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections