← 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 Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

BRIEF PROPOSITION: 1. Notice under Section 148 cannot be issued on mere suspicion. Reopening is bad in Law as there exist no reason to believe that income has escaped Assessment and there is no independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Reopening is not permitted ... power to re-open the assessment provided there is tangible material" to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason to believe' has to be construed in logical term'. A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 14. The AO had no such

M/S Radiance Exim Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6635/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6635/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Radiance Exim Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-8(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, Vs. Shiv Chawl No.2, Shiv Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Sagar Sejar Samiti, Tanaji Road, Mumbai-400020. Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr4706L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 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)-21, Mumbai Dated 31.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Action Of Ao To Re-Open The Assessment Of Ay 2007-08 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 26.03.2014 & Consequent Passing Of Re-Assessment Order Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015, Which According To The Ld. Ar, Is Bad In Law For Several Reasons (Infra). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Did Not Had The Requisite Jurisdiction To Re-Open The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Because The Reasons Recorded By The Ao Dated 18.03.2014 (Refer Page

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

dated 26.03.2014. According to the Ld. AR, the fundamental jurisdictional requirement for re-opening an assessment was that the AO had “reason to believe escapement of income”. According to him, it is settled law that “reason to believe” postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. And even ... adverse information may trigger “reason to suspect”, (when he received information from DGIT (Inv.) against the assessee) and not reason to believe, which is the requirement of law to re-open, which was absent in this case. According to him, when the AO had adverse information [“reason to suspect”], then

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5609/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

receipt of information from the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation), Kolkata, the ax (Investigation), Kolkata, the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income recorded reasons to believe that income had escape escaped assessment and he issued notice under section 148 of the issued notice under section ... basis of the aforesaid information available with me and after duly rmation available with me and after duly applying my mind, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax applying my mind, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax applying my mind, I have reasons

Solvex Interchem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6973/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147BSection 147CSection 148Section 151(2)Section 68

Rs.15,00,000/- was made by assessee to M/s. Durga Prasad & Co. (proprietor Mr. Sachin S. Gaikwad) and as such AO found reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- has escaped assessment. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to hold ... Rs.15,00,000/- was made by the assessee to M/s. Durga Prasad & Co. (proprietor Mr. Sachin S. Gaikwad) and as such he has reason to believe that income of Rs.15,00,000/- has escaped assessment. 10. When we examine the assessment order particularly para 4, the AO in the notice

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6670/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus entries whose source is not genuine. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 issued, after obtaining approval

Rajarathnam'S Jewels, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)

held to be not valid. For initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the AO should have reason to believe on the basis of material coming into his Page 17 of 24 possession after conclusion of the original assessment, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The fact that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the position of law that, in the absence of reason to believe and without any evidence to form such reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions ... section 147 of the act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that, the reason to believe for issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act should be on the basis of tangible material and not on presumptions and on just

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the position of law that, in the absence of reason to believe and without any evidence to form such reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions ... section 147 of the act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that, the reason to believe for issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act should be on the basis of tangible material and not on presumptions and on just

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the position of law that, in the absence of reason to believe and without any evidence to form such reason to believe that, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions ... section 147 of the act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that, the reason to believe for issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act should be on the basis of tangible material and not on presumptions and on just

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7760/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 131Section 147

escaped to assessment therefore the reasons recorded are vague and ambiguous therefore AO has re-opened the case reason to doubt instead of reason to believe therefore assessment proceeding initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law and consequentially the order passed cannot be sustained. 3. On the facts ... Ganesh Anant Ghade, who admitted that said bank account was owned and operated by the assessee. In view of the information, after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on 19/03/2018 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2018

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7759/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 131Section 147

escaped to assessment therefore the reasons recorded are vague and ambiguous therefore AO has re-opened the case reason to doubt instead of reason to believe therefore assessment proceeding initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law and consequentially the order passed cannot be sustained. 3. On the facts ... Ganesh Anant Ghade, who admitted that said bank account was owned and operated by the assessee. In view of the information, after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on 19/03/2018 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2018

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

most mere reasons Officer are vague, without application of mind and at the most mere reasons to suspect and not reason to believe; to suspect and not reason to believe; (f) the reassessment is initiated on the the reassessment is initiated on the assumption of escapement of income; escapement ... Moreover in the case, the assessee has not represented that actual has not represented that actual reasons recorded are different from the reasons to believe communicated to reasons recorded are different from the reasons to believe communicated to reasons recorded are different from the reasons to believe communicated

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus entries whose source is not genuine. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued, after obtaining approval

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus entries whose source is not genuine. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued, after obtaining approval

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 5850/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

companies are reflected at NIL. In view of the additional information received from the DCIT, Central Circle- 45, Mumbai as above I have reason to believe that income amounting to ₹ ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013 Jas Trading Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 1,90,000/- being 1 % commission earned ... companies are reflected at Nil. In view of the additional information received from the DCIT, CC-55, Mumbai, as above, I have the reason to believe that income amounting to ₹ 1,90,000/- being 1% commission earned by the assessee on accommodation loan entries of ₹ ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 3603/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

companies are reflected at NIL. In view of the additional information received from the DCIT, Central Circle- 45, Mumbai as above I have reason to believe that income amounting to ₹ ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013 Jas Trading Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 1,90,000/- being 1 % commission earned ... companies are reflected at Nil. In view of the additional information received from the DCIT, CC-55, Mumbai, as above, I have the reason to believe that income amounting to ₹ 1,90,000/- being 1% commission earned by the assessee on accommodation loan entries of ₹ ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013

Sidhesh Films P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

admittedly he received in a survey that took place in office of proprietary concern of the director in March 2009 giving him a reason to believe of an escapement of income in future. Without prejudice to the above 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts circumstances of the case

JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1489/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

ground that the assessee had deliberately filed an untrue estimate of the advance tax which he had known or reason to believe to be untrue. The Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in holding the transaction to be genuine. [Para 25] The High Court's finding, that

M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 1462/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

ground that the assessee had deliberately filed an untrue estimate of the advance tax which he had known or reason to believe to be untrue. The Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in holding the transaction to be genuine. [Para 25] The High Court's finding, that

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

assessment was re-opened on the basis of fresh material and specifically recording it in the reasons for re-opening with a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2.2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that, the assessee has paid certain commission to Shri ... escaped assessment". 4.3 However, the objections were rejected by Ld. AO by observing as under: - (i) The Assessing Officer should have a reason to believe, a reason to believe occur when the AO discovers some material or get a new insight subsequent to conclusion of original assessment proceeding. In this