← 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

Parveen Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6514/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Parveen Yadav, Ito, 228, Yadav Mohalla Vs Ward-33(5), Rajokari, South West Delhi Room No.1309, 13Th Floor,E-2 Delhi-110038 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan. Pan-Afapy5633C Civic Centre, J. L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2021

Section 147Section 148

Appellant and was violative of principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act without appreciating that (i) the reasons recorded were based on stale information and having no nexus with

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

capital gain of ₹ 25,036,358/–. Thus long-term capital gain on RS 25,036,358/- was taxed at Rs 5,007,272/–. Reassessment proceedings before AO Page 5 of 53 15. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of The Income ... details of the whole transaction and the justification for claim of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the income tax act. 17. During reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

capital gain of ₹ 25,036,358/–. Thus long-term capital gain on RS 25,036,358/- was taxed at Rs 5,007,272/–. Reassessment proceedings before AO Page 5 of 53 15. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of The Income ... details of the whole transaction and the justification for claim of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the income tax act. 17. During reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

capital gain of ₹ 25,036,358/–. Thus long-term capital gain on RS 25,036,358/- was taxed at Rs 5,007,272/–. Reassessment proceedings before AO Page 5 of 53 15. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of The Income ... details of the whole transaction and the justification for claim of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the income tax act. 17. During reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year

Kalinga Conduits & Electricables P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9350/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 263Section 68Section 69C

assessee that no enquiry was conducted in the said case whereas in the case of the assessee enquiries were duly conducted during the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the decision relied on by Ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case, The various other decisions relied ... applicable to the facts of the present case. We find from a perusal of the paper book that the assessee during the course of reassessment proceeding had filed the requisite details as called for by the AO and the Assessing Officer after considering the same completed the assessment which

Sarita Bagdi, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

Sarita Bagadia for personal attendance along with required documents. Summons were also issued to other connected parties. Assessee’s case was reopened for reassessment proceedings. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.3.2016 after recording reasons and getting prior approval from the competent authority. Notice ... penny stock or a paper company. Relevant extract of written submission by the assessee is reproduced below:- That, during the course of reassessment proceedings the Ld. AO vide order dt. 16.12.2016 made an addition of Rs. 48,85,547/- by disallowing the exemption claimed

The ACIT, Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 956/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

reopening on the issue of bogus purchases of Rs.51,116/-. Assessee filed necessary submissions which could not find any favour of the assessing officer. Reassessment proceedings were completed after disallowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act at Rs.42,94,354/- by observing that assessee could not commence production within ... However, records shows that after receiving the information Ld. AO has not made an independent application of mind on the information. Before initiating the reassessment proceedings in motion he was bound to examine the facts related to the purchase from M/s. Motion Traders Pvt. Ltd. which is available on record

The ACIT Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 955/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

reopening on the issue of bogus purchases of Rs.51,116/-. Assessee filed necessary submissions which could not find any favour of the assessing officer. Reassessment proceedings were completed after disallowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act at Rs.42,94,354/- by observing that assessee could not commence production within ... However, records shows that after receiving the information Ld. AO has not made an independent application of mind on the information. Before initiating the reassessment proceedings in motion he was bound to examine the facts related to the purchase from M/s. Motion Traders Pvt. Ltd. which is available on record

Duggal & Sons Buildwell (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

ITA 3396/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

consonance with the actual escapement of the income of the assessee. Thus, the assessment order itself is null and void-ab-intio as the reassessment proceedings becomes invalid. In view of this, there is no need of going into the merits of the case. Hence, we are not adjudicating

Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

ITA 3395/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

consonance with the actual escapement of the income of the assessee. Thus, the assessment order itself is null and void-ab-intio as the reassessment proceedings becomes invalid. In view of this, there is no need of going into the merits of the case. Hence, we are not adjudicating

ITO 2(1), Ujjain vs. Shri Santosh Agrawal Prop. M/S. Santosh Enterprises, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 989/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

issue was resolved by the Learned CIT(A) in favour of the assessee in the appellate proceeding. But it appears that during the reassessment proceeding, on the similar issue, the Learned AO had given his different findings. This clearly demonstrates that the matter did came for due consideration before ... Agrawal squarely applies for the instant case which we find has been duly taken care of by the Ld. CIT(A) while quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O. Thus in the absence of any new material which can lead to reassessment proceedings by the Ld. A.O particularly

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

known as M/s. Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., and then as Mamram Developers P. Ltd.,] Delhi. rejecting the assessee’s objections but also in the reassessment proceedings, where he proceeded to add the entire amount to the income of the assessee. Therefore there was non-application of mind on the part

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

Tribunal, after considering the rival arguments made by both the sides has allowed the additional grounds and quashed the reassessment proceedings. Since, facts of the impugned appeal are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09, therefore, reopening ... shape of additional ground before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide ITA No.1856/Del/2016, order dated 17.02.2021 has quashed the reassessment proceeding by observing as under:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled Law that validity of the re-assessment proceedings is to be determined with reference

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

facts of the case in relying upon the valuation report under section 55A of the Act which was received after the completion of reassessment proceedings, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming ... Assessing Officer to convert the reassessment proceedings made on 3 ITA. 2724 /Del/2015 AND C.O. 456/Del/2015 protective into substantive proceedings through passing a rectification order under section 154 of the Act to assume fresh jurisdiction over the appellant company, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified, uncalled

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

income of the appellant- facts/particulars of its income necessary for its assessment. For the reasons mentioned above, it has to be held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were within jurisdiction and valid in the eyes of law in as much as reasons recorded by the Assessing

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

income of the appellant- facts/particulars of its income necessary for its assessment. For the reasons mentioned above, it has to be held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were within jurisdiction and valid in the eyes of law in as much as reasons recorded by the Assessing

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. Paveljeet Singh Ruppal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

that re- assessment proceeding u/s 147 vide notice dated 17.03.2015 u/s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio and secondly the entire reassessment proceedings is quashed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th May, 2021. [ANIL

Simranpal Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Simranpal Singh Suri, Vs Ito, Jg-1/77, Vikaspuri, Ward 45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Akzps3760Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex court has held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen ... treated as invalid and assessment is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO. Therefore, on all counts the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) in my opinion is not in accordance with the law. I, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings

ITO, Ward- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Omkam Developers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7507/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 68

basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, on the basis of which reasons for reopening were recorded and the reassessment proceedings were invoked, have been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law in confirming the additions

Omkam Developers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(1), New Delhi

ITA 6862/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 68

basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, on the basis of which reasons for reopening were recorded and the reassessment proceedings were invoked, have been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law in confirming the additions