← 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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

ITA 296/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

Ahmedabad. ARREST OF SHRI OMPRAKASH KISHANLAL BISHNOI. 6. From the statements and documentary evidences available on record, it appeared that there were reasons to believe that Shri Omprakash Bishnoi, Authorised Person of M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation, Ahmedabad, had committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs ... omission and commission on his part, he had indulged in the smuggling of imported goods which he knew or had reasons to believe that the said goods were liable to confiscation under Section III(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods so imported were to be treated

Farooq Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int - Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Cash. Since the assessee paid such a huge sum of money in cash in-spite of being a non- filer, he had a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After recording the reasons and obtaining

Seaside Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

done to escape assessment of part of its income. Prima facie this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3.1. On the merits of the case also, ld. Counsel submitted that the addition has been ... perusing the material available on record, prima facie we are of the view that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as it lacks reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As already noted above, AO initiated the proceeding for the purpose of verification of contents

Mahavir Prasad Jat, Jaipur vs. ITO WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

other section i.e., 142, 133(6), 131A, 133A 132 etc. But the powers of section 148 can only be taken where AO has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment. And for such belief, he has compulsorily recorded the reason for belief of escapement. Hon’ble Gujarat High ... that where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the AO has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is invalid and as such, the impugned

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

under section 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding under section 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above Para No- 2. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee had- filed*.return ... escaped assessment. In this case more than four year have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Thus 1 have reason to believe that income of Rs. 30.00,000/- had escaped assessment for which the Return of AY 2012-13 needs to be reassessed u/s 147,Necessary

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

limitation prescribed under the Act to complete the assessment. d) On account of non-verification of details furnished, the new AO has a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped from the assessment. The conclusion on the part of the AO is that on account ... power under section 147 cannot be used to review the order. In the present case, though the Assessing Officer has used the phrase "reason to believe", admittedly between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of formation of opinion by the Assessing Officer

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

that amount advanced of Rs.80 lakhs are not found reasonable in view of income shown by assessee and therefore there is a reason to believe that amount of Rs.80 lacs has escaped assessment. From the reasons recorded it can be noted that AO has nowhere examined the source of amount ... language of said DDIT report without any independent application of mind and there was no other vital documents on record based on which reasons to believe were formed, impugned reopening order and consequential demand notices issued were bad in law and thus liable to be set aside

M/S City Shoppe Estates Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

issued on the assessee. Assessee filed a fresh return in response to notice u/s. 148 on 02.05.2017 and sought copy of reasons to believe recorded by the AO for initiating the said proceedings. In the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO, it is noted that a search ... Subhas Agarwal recorded u/s. 132 of the Act during the course of search and seizure operation on whose deposition, ld. AO formed the reason to believe that assessee’s income 3 City Shoppe Estates Ltd., AY 2010-11 to the extent of Rs.40 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

M/S Godawari Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

dated 18.04.2017, assessee submitted that its original return filed on 20.08.2012 be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148. Copy of reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO were supplied to the assessee against which objections were filed vide letter dated 12.09.2017 along with copy of confirmation ... dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to copy of reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO, placed in the paper book at page 2 for contesting the jurisdictional ground raised in the present appeal

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perusal of return filed, it is noticed that net profit or loss from speculation business has been shown at NIL. Thus, I have reasons to believe that income of Rs. 56,73,633/- and commission paid thereon @ 3% i.e. Rs. 1,70,209/- has escaped assessment within the meaning ... whether assessee was one among them. In the absence of this, the Learned Assessing Officer was not competent to have a satisfaction and reason to believe that the assessee was also subjected to spot verification and was found having misused the facility of client code modification. It is also

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, within the meaning of provisions of section 147, since assessee did not have registration ... case. c. The order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and the reasons amounted to merely reasons to suspect, on the facts and circumstances

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, within the meaning of provisions of section 147, since assessee did not have registration ... case. c. The order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and the reasons amounted to merely reasons to suspect, on the facts and circumstances

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 883/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 882/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2567/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM