← 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 Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

drawn to the relevant provisions of law contained in section 147 of the Act as under: 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

drawn to the relevant provisions of law contained in section 147 of the Act as under: 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

drawn to the relevant provisions of law contained in section 147 of the Act as under: 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess

DCIT - CC- 3, Thane vs. Ajiv Yashwant Patil, Mumbai

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

ITA 610/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Ajiv Yashwant Patil Acit, Central Circle-3 103, Parijat Apartments, Gaothan, Thane Vs. Virar (W), Thane-401 303

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: 22.11.2023
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

module of the ITD system, assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee amounting to Rs.3583.50 lacs has escaped assessment for the reason of failure on the part of the assessee, to disclose fully ... assessee’s case for A.Y. 2008-09 for which the only requirement to initiate the proceeding u/s. 148 of the Act was reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on the prima facie material. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Ajiv Yashwnat Patil, Thane vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

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

ITA 549/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Ajiv Yashwant Patil Acit, Central Circle-3 103, Parijat Apartments, Gaothan, Thane Vs. Virar (W), Thane-401 303

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: 22.11.2023
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

module of the ITD system, assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee amounting to Rs.3583.50 lacs has escaped assessment for the reason of failure on the part of the assessee, to disclose fully ... assessee’s case for A.Y. 2008-09 for which the only requirement to initiate the proceeding u/s. 148 of the Act was reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on the prima facie material. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

disclose all material facts fully and truly relevant to the assessment. Therefore, there was a finding recorded by the AO in the reasons to believe that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly relevant to the assessment ... 461/AHD/2019 & Others. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under: 103. However, on comparison of the additions proposed in the reason to believe recorded for the assessment under Section 147 of the Act with the actual addition made by the AO as contended by the learned DR hereinabove

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

disclose all material facts fully and truly relevant to the assessment. Therefore, there was a finding recorded by the AO in the reasons to believe that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly relevant to the assessment ... 461/AHD/2019 & Others. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under: 103. However, on comparison of the additions proposed in the reason to believe recorded for the assessment under Section 147 of the Act with the actual addition made by the AO as contended by the learned DR hereinabove

Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashre, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1122/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

contends the same shows only a belief in the existence of the reasons for income escaping assessment and the same cannot be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Therefore, notice u/s 143(2) has been issues' without application of mind. 13. The learned Commissioner of Income

Tarun Tolaram Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-26(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3395/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) Tarun Tolaram Kapoor बिधम/ Acit (Osc) 4/9, Vivekanand Society, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. Th Kataria Marg, Mahim Kamaladevi Mittal (W), Mumbai – 400016. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpk3828M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By: Shri P.D Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -57, Mumbai, Dated 28.07.2023 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri P.D Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 3

that before reopening an assessment the AO has to record the reasons wherein he has to spell out the “Reasons to believe, escapement of income”. It is well settled that “Reasons to believe” postulate foundation based on information and belief based on reason. After a foundation based on information ... that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In addition, one should bear in mind the fine distinction between “Reason to Suspect” and “Reason to believe”. Information adverse may trigger “Reason to Suspect” which is not sufficient to reopen an assessment because as per section 3 A.Y. 2008-09 Tarun

Jai Kishan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -39(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

appreciate that notice u/s 148 of the Act does not meet the requirement of law, in as much as there is no reason to believe' as contemplated u/s 147 of the Act with the Ld. AO to initiate reassessment proceedings. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda, Vile Parle East vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2891/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda Income Tax Officer Shop No. 1, Vireshwar Krupa, Ward 25(2)(4) Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 057

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

resulte in escapement of income to the extent of Rs.19,22,854/-. 4 Jayantilal Keshavji Chheda vs. ITO In the circumstances, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 within the menaing of section 147 of the Income

P.L. Goenka HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29/4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

which was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 18.01.2014. Based on the discussion above, I have reasons to believe the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs, 5,36,750/- within the meaning of section 147 of the Income ... CBDT vide its internal directive No. 247/140/2017-A&PC-1 dated 10/01/18, it was claimed that the legal requirement to reopen the assessment i.e., reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, has not been satisfied. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued for reopening the assessment

Sheetal Impex P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2053/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 147 are as under: “[Income escaping assessment. 5 147. If the 6[Assessing] Officer 7[has reason to believe 8] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 8 for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 , assess

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

year. On perusal of the documents on record as well as the information received from the investigation wing, I am satisfied and have reason to believe that the income of the assessee company amounting to Rs. 1,26,88,804/- has escaped assessment. The escapement of income has been clearly ... amount of Rs. 1,13,74,623/- is totally dissimilar to suspicious transaction of Rs.75,25,000/- forming the basis for holding reason to believe. Thus, both the transactions forming part of the reasons have not been carried out by the assessee at all. The very basis for reopening

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

year. On perusal of the documents on record as well as the information received from the investigation wing, I am satisfied and have reason to believe that the income of the assessee company amounting to Rs. 1,26,88,804/- has escaped assessment. The escapement of income has been clearly ... amount of Rs. 1,13,74,623/- is totally dissimilar to suspicious transaction of Rs.75,25,000/- forming the basis for holding reason to believe. Thus, both the transactions forming part of the reasons have not been carried out by the assessee at all. The very basis for reopening

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, there is enough reason to believe that income has escaped assessment in the hand of assessee. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the Fictitious Profits in Commodity Trading to the extent

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle.1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 69A

Shri Prakashbhai, the Assessing Officer was of the view that he has been engaged in providing accommodation entry. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed reasons to believe that the assessee 3 I.T.A No. 154/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on hand must also ... framed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, there was no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to form the reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Likewise, we also note that the information from the investigation wing was received with respect

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

assessee obtained bogus purchase bills from certain bogus purchase bills from certain ‘hawala’ dealers and accordingly dealers and accordingly the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment escaped assessment , therefore, he reopened the assessment by way therefore ... notice u/s 148 heldthat all that is required for issue of notice under se required for issue of notice under section 147, is "reason to believe" ction 147, is "reason to believe" that some income has escaped assessment in the following words: that some income has escaped assessment

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

assessee obtained bogus purchase bills from certain bogus purchase bills from certain ‘hawala’ dealers and accordingly dealers and accordingly the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment escaped assessment , therefore, he reopened the assessment by way therefore ... notice u/s 148 heldthat all that is required for issue of notice under se required for issue of notice under section 147, is "reason to believe" ction 147, is "reason to believe" that some income has escaped assessment in the following words: that some income has escaped assessment

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

rightly been allowing the claim right from AY 1989-90 to AY 2005-06, Hence, the Assessee submits that there is no reason to believe that income escaped assessment and reconsideration of the same issue on the same set of facts will therefore mean only a change of opinion ... there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 10.5 The Assessee has relied on the Bombay High Court in its own case for AY 2002-03 in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 534 where a deduction under section 80-IB was made