← All Phrases

“reason to believe”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1474,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for reason to believe is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reason to believe

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.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

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.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

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.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Judgments citing reason to believe

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the appeals of the Revenue, having become infructuous, are dismissed

ITA 2444/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh Accountantmember Member

Section 147Section 14A

Tribunal while deciding assessee’s appeal. Thus, he submitted, in view of the decisions of the Tribunal, the very foundation for reason to believe by the Assessing Officer has gone. Hence, the reassessment proceedings have been rendered invalid. He submitted, in assessee’s own case in assessment year

Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 204/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

group companies of the Shashwat Agarwal group, M/s Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited and M/s Rich Udyog Limited, the ld. AO had recorded reason to believe that the amounts transferred to M/s Halwasiya Properties Private Limited, was nothing but the undisclosed income of the transferee, which had been advanced ... being subjected to tax and for this reason, proper compliance could not be made . We observe that the expectation that reasons to believe would be supplied to it, is a 4 A.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd. reasonable expectation and considering that it is fairly evident that the case

Subba Rao Jaladi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 371/VIZ/2024[2013-14 ]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 194CSection 250Section 250(6)

income for the year under consideration, the source for cash deposits made by the assessee is unexplained and accordingly Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of Rs.9,57,94,850/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Sec.147 of the Act. Assessing Officer

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

appellant is that when the assessment order is reopened beyond four years, two conditions need to be satisfied: (1) AO should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (2) There should be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts ... Delhi held that where original assessment orders were silent on aspect on which reopening had been ordered, it could not be said that reason to believe constituted a 'change of opinion' [2011] 16 taxmann.com 190 (Bom.) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle

Latitude Infraventures, Nagpur vs. PCIT, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

previous years. Therefore, income for A.Y. 2016-17 has escaped assessment. In the view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income to the tune of Rs.15,33,33,000/- has escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17." 5.3 Issues on which assessment order is sought ... previous years. Therefore, income for A.Y. 2016-17 has escaped assessment. In the view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income to the tune of Rs.15,33,33,000/- has escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17." 10. Further, the issues on which the order

Latitude Infraventures, Nagpur vs. PCIT, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

previous years. Therefore, income for A.Y. 2016-17 has escaped assessment. In the view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income to the tune of Rs.15,33,33,000/- has escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17." 5.3 Issues on which assessment order is sought ... previous years. Therefore, income for A.Y. 2016-17 has escaped assessment. In the view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income to the tune of Rs.15,33,33,000/- has escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17." 10. Further, the issues on which the order

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Sarena P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1754/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons to believe based on the information received from Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee has received accommodation entry to the extent ... opinion that assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.3.11 crores from the shell companies of Pradeep Kumar Jindal and he has reason to believe that income to tune of Rs.3.11 crores has escaped assessment. Based on the above information, Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133 to the following parties

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Sarena P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1753/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons to believe based on the information received from Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee has received accommodation entry to the extent ... opinion that assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.3.11 crores from the shell companies of Pradeep Kumar Jindal and he has reason to believe that income to tune of Rs.3.11 crores has escaped assessment. Based on the above information, Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133 to the following parties

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

quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in fact while rejecting the appeal without considering that reason to believe for initiation of scrutiny u/s 147 was not provided by the Ld. AO. During the assessment proceeding even the appellant has asked ... provides reason to believe which is prerequisite of section 147 proceeding Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 3 and therefore on the basis of law and fact of the case the assessment order passed u/s 147 without prescribed manner to do assessment

Askari Infotech Private Limited, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sathe
Section 143(1)Section 144

interest income of Rs.39,88,509/- have not been offered to tax for the period under consideration, therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the assessee has not 4 disclosed the interest income of Rs.39,88,509/- in its return of income and also not shown the amount

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Rs.36,48,517/. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has examined the case to the extent to the scope of reason to believe' only. In view of the investigation made by the Investigation of Income-tax Department as well as the admission made by Shri Suresh Kumar Jain ... taxes. Accordingly, it is evident that the assessee-company has failed to make true and full disclosure of its income. Thus, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.1, 50,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

proceeded to frame the assessment. This Court in Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) had observed that the requirements regarding recording the reasons to believe; communicating the same to the Assessee; permitting the Assessee to file the objections; and passing a speaking order disposing of the objections ... other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided; (ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasonsxind grounds available with the AO for re-opening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso

Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250

tangible, relevant, specific and reliable material on record on the basis of which, it could be held that, there was any reason to believe with the learned Assessing Officer that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and, in view thereof, the proceedings initiated were illegal, untenable and therefore, unsustainable

Bridham Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1353/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

eyes of law. It has been held time and again that for reopening of the assessment, the ld. AO must have sufficient reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. That the reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. That the reopening cannot

Manisha Anil Sharma, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer (Int Tax) - 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed while

ITA 2853/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Dilip LunawatFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 270A(1)Section 56Section 68

satisfy necessary requisites including monetary limit contained in Section 147 read with section 148 of the Act and there being no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and consequently the final assessment order, is without jurisdiction and merit, is void ab initio and should

Ags Developers Pvt Ltd, Jasola Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

contrary to the settled position of law. He submitted that the basis for re-opening the assessment as per the reasons to believe is stated that a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the office premises of Shri Tarun Goyal by the Investigation Wing, Delhi ... basis of facts and information contained in letter of Directorate of Investigation, the ITO could have formed opinion that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and he was justified in his action and merely because notice was issued on very next

Subhash Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2529/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

response to which assessee has failed to furnish satisfactory reply. 3. Therefore, on the facts and case as stated above, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.35,01,600/- has escaped assessment. Therefore, I propose to reasons the aforesaid income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. (Vijay

ACIT, CC-29, New Delhi vs. Subhash Chnad Gupta, Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

response to which assessee has failed to furnish satisfactory reply. 3. Therefore, on the facts and case as stated above, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.35,01,600/- has escaped assessment. Therefore, I propose to reasons the aforesaid income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. (Vijay

Shikhar Exports, New Delhi vs. Aito Ward - 54(1), New Delhi

ITA 8518/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarshikhar Exports Vs. Aito, Ward – 54(1) C/O. Pranshu Goel, C.A. New Delhi 5A/3A, Ansari Road Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002 Pan: Aadfs 6406 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranshu Goel, C.A. & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, C.A. and Shri Aditya Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)

part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for A.Y 2011-12. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the sum of Rs.2,02,26,318/- chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee

ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak vs. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak

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

ITA 7482/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Ito, Ward 4, Vs. M/S. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. H.No.122/8, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak (Haryana). (Pan: Aakcs2610R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Order : 18.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 18.08.2009 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,17,770/-. The Return Was Processed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

thereby creating non-genuine losses amounting to Rs.1,85,45,456/-. By recording the above reasons, Assessing Officer issued 148 notice recording the reasons to believe that income assessed escaped in this assessment year after obtaining approval of Pr.CIT, Rohtak on 31.03.2016. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee ... genuine losses amounting to Rs.1,85,46,456/- After going through the above information and records available in this office, I have therefore reasons to believe that an income of Rs. 1,85,46,456/ -of the assessment year 2009-10 has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable