“reason to believe”

Hemant Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

entry of profit/loss to reduce the taxable income which remained unascertained considering the meager income- offered by the assessee. Therefore, I have the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.(-)50,52,690/- for the A.Y.2010-11 has escaped' assessment within the meaning of Section ... detailed appeal order, vide pages 26 to 38 and held that the Ld. AO has got sufficient material in his possession to form “Reason to Believe” and held that the reopening of assessment as valid. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt the second ground of appeal, on merits, which

ITO -24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, HUF, Mumbai

mentioned earlier, in the first round, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the order of Ld. AO on the ground that there is no “reason to believe” and held that reopening of assessment is invalid. On appeal before Hon'ble ITAT by Revenue, it was held that the assessment was validly

Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

page 3 that the assessee had the reasons to reopen the assessment and making additions. As per law, the Ld. AO had “Reason to Believe” that the income escaped tax because he got information from Mumbai Investigation Directorate that the assessee took accommodation entries from Mr. Shirish Chandrakant C. Shah

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

above and on the basis of material available on records and on perusal and careful consideration of the same, I have prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.6,63,13,654/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... wherein payment is made to Riddhi Siddhi Bullion does not give rise to logical suspicion that Assessee has undisclosed income. There is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax in the tune of Rs. 6,63, 13,654/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Shailesh K. Wadnere, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(2), Kalyan

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148, in absence of tangible material 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) erred in confirming the addition of Short term capital Shri Shailesh

Shailesh K. Wadnere, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(2), Kalyan

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148, in absence of tangible material 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) erred in confirming the addition of Short term capital Shri Shailesh

Rohit Vijay Soparkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy S

made credit card payments during the F.Y 2013-14 and the assessee has not filed the return of income. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and the AO has also issued notice u/se

Income Tax Officer, 25.1.1, Mumbai vs. J M Finacial Property Fund II, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), J M Financial Property Fund Ii, 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Kautilya 141, Makers Chambers Iii, Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabtj 0512 D Appellant Respondent

ground that addition made in the reassessment is different from the ground that addition made in the reassessment is different from the reasons to believe r reasons to believe recorded to have income escaped from ecorded to have income escaped from assessment. The Revenue has specifically raised this ground ... holds that the income which accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has he has initially formed a reason to believe

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

taxmann.com 51/367 ITR 769/[2015] 274 CTR 189 (Punj. & Har). 9. In Sri. N. Govindaraju it was held that "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is one aspect of the matter; if reason exists, the Assessing Officer can undoubtedly assess or reassess such income ... which there is such reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, it was held that the second part of the Section relates to "any other income" and the question would be as to whether it is to be read in conjunction to the first part

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

taxmann.com 51/367 ITR 769/[2015] 274 CTR 189 (Punj. & Har). 9. In Sri. N. Govindaraju it was held that "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is one aspect of the matter; if reason exists, the Assessing Officer can undoubtedly assess or reassess such income ... which there is such reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, it was held that the second part of the Section relates to "any other income" and the question would be as to whether it is to be read in conjunction to the first part

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

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

assessment. Therefore, it cannot be income chargeable tax having escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason

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

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

assessment. Therefore, it cannot be income chargeable tax having escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason

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

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

assessment. Therefore, it cannot be income chargeable tax having escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason