“reason to believe”

Income Tax Officer 13(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nirnay Commodities and Derivatives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

operative Credit Society Ltd. and thereafter transferred the said money to Suraj Enterprises. On the basis of said information, the AO had the reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly served notice under section 148 of the Income

Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

however, act unreasonable. …....As laid down by this court the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find ... laid down by this court the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the 5 | P a g e taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find

Aftar Mannan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalaftar Mannan Shaikh, Vs. Acit – 31(1) C-11, 7Th Floor, 12Th Floor, Ee Heights, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 12Th Floor, Beside Kfc, Bkc (E), Sv Road, Mumbai-400051. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102.. Pan/Gir No. Benps2128R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

premises and the assessee has not filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act . Therefore the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the return

Mani D Seervai, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

consequential in nature. 2.1. Since the moot point is on invocation of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, we refer to the reasons to believe recorded by the ld. AO before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Copy of reasons to believe are placed at pages ... year. Thus, on the basis of investigation, findings, analysis of the information available with him from various sources, he formed the reason to believe that income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- had escaped assessment. It is thus observed that the sole basis for taking up the proceedings

Jalnawallas Sports Training and Research Centre, Palm Beach Road Sanpada vs. Ward 28(1)(4), Vashi Railway Station

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 142(1) on the ground that he has Jalnawallas Sports Training and Research Centre. reason to believe that income has escaped assessment since the Assessee has not filed its income tax return. In fact, the Assessee has filed its income tax return

Ajay Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

property. The Assessee in response neither filed any reply nor any explanation. Therefore, the AO by recording reason for reopening and forming the reason to believe that there has been escapement of income within the meaning of proviso to section 147 of the Act, reopened the case of the Assessee ... property under consideration, however the Assessee neither replied the said notice/letter dated 24.01.2018 nor filed any explanation, therefore the AO rightly formed the reason to believe for reopening of the case and consequently issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and thus reopening of the case cannot be faulted with

Shri Anilkumar Shrichandra Jha, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalshrianilkumarshrichandrajha Vs. Ito-Ward-42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, 201, Harshal Apartment,, Mumbai -400050. Yk Nagar Nx, Virar(West), Thane – 401303. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Afapj5344R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

assessee and the transactions entered with various parties as referred in page 2 of the assessment order. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessement and has issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and further the AO has issued notice u/sec

Ashwin General Merchants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-6(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

since had been issued in absence of tangible material and without independent application of mind and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made u/s.68

Mahavir Metal and Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matrumandir Nana Chowk, Mumbai

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

aforesaid paragraphs, it is opined that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries during the year. Thus, after applying my mind I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2011-12 amounting to Rs.65,20,767/- or any other income chargeable ... scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in para- 5 & 6 above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return