← 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

M/S. Ganpat Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 463/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Ganpat Steel Industries V. Income Tax Officer – 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Office No. 12, Kolsawala Building Mumbai – 400 007 1St Floor, 67, Dr. M.G. Mahimutra Street Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aagfg3758B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By : Shri Vaibhav Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

appreciate that (a) Proceeding initiated under section 147 /148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. (b) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice

Mital Vardhibhai Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 678/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhmital Vardhibhai Doshi Vs. Acit – 19(2) C/O. Mital Brass, 216, Room No. 207, Shriji Chambers, Matru Mandir, Nana Operahouse,Charaniroad Chowk,Grantroad(W), Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan/Gir No. : Adupd8176D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Himanshi Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Himanshi Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

taken place in the Rajendra Jain Group. The A.O. has considered the facts and find that the assessee was beneficiary and has a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Incompliance to the Mital Vardhibhai Doshi, Mumbai. notice

Asha Krishnarao Bhoge, Aurangabad vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

In the result, the assessee appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1659/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasha Krishnarao Bhoge Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(1) Plot No.-D7, Khivasara 6Th Floor, B Wing, Nilgiris, Khivsara Park, Ashar It Park, Wagle Ulkanagari, Industrial Estate, Aurangabad Road No. 16Z, Thane Maharashtra.-431009 Maharashtra-400604 Pan/Gir No. : Argpb3366F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

purchase of shop No.129 flat in Building Arcadia. The Assessing officer (A.O.) after duly recording the reasons for reopening and has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assesseement and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently the notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

assessee as per letter dated 5-11-2013 as above and on the facts and the circumstances of the case, I have reasons to believe that the taxable income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Issue notice u/s. 148 to initiate assessment proceedings, since I have reason to believe that ... reasons has been reproduced by the AO in his assessment order and there was escapement of income and the AO had strong reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning and scope of Section 147 of the Act. He further submitted that the learned

Shri Radhey Comsec Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand dismissed

ITA 3968/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Radhey Comsec Pvt. Vs. Cit(A)-21 Ltd., 315, Luxuria Room No. 8, 3 Rd Floor, Business Hub, Near V.R. B-Wing, Mittal Court, Mall, Dumad Road, Nariman Point, Surat – 395007 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aajcs7720B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appellant. As could be seen from record, the AO has recorded reasons for reopening and has satisfied himself that there is a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment the Appellant has raised objection against reopening of the case which should be treated as beyond the scope ... business as recognized by various stock exchanges Sec 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 says that the AO has to have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment Reason to believe can be on the basis of information which comes to his possession

D. Ravilal Resources Management Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As) M/S. Generic Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 469/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S D Ravilal Resources Vs. Dcit – 10(2) Management Pvt Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan (Formerly Known As M/S. Bkc, Bandra (E) Generic Engineering & Mumbai – 400051. Construction Pvt Ltd) No. A-206, 2Nd Floor, Zest Business Centre, Mg Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg2374E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

gets vitiated for want of proper legal sanction and consequently, the Order impugned may be vacated for the following reasons: (a) that the reasons to believe based on the report of the DDIT (Inv.) Wing which is not coming out of Assessing Officer's own volition. (b) that the reasons ... suspect cannot be the reasons to believe; therefore, on jurisdictional failure at the root level, it becomes non-curable defect u/s. 292BB, hence, the notice may be quashed. MERITS: 3. Addition on account of ingenuine Purchases - Rs.63,26,104/- The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition on account

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

information from DGIT (Inv),Mumbai that the assessee is a beneficiary of the accommodation entries provided by these companies. Hence the A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and after recording for reopening of ITA No. 6128/Mum/2019 & Co. No. 45/Mum/2021 Shri Majni Karmshi Patel, Mumbai. assessment

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

enquiry was carried out by the source and no enquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no application ... making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

enquiry was carried out by the source and no enquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no application ... making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

enquiry was carried out by the source and no enquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no before recording reasons to believe and therefore there was no application ... making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

above lands to M/s. Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai, in the return of income filed by him for AY 2010-11. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2010-11." 4. The AO computed the income of the assessee

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

action u/s 132 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “Explanation (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate

Marve Beach Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7830/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemarve Beach Realtors Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(2) Room No. 673 161-C, Mittal Tower, C-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Rajni Patel Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacm6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Narayan Atal Department By : Shri Suresh Periasamy

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

under: - “Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under two conditions, viz, if (a) the ITO had reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment ... escaped assessment for that year, or (b) the ITO had in 8 Marve Beach Realtors Pvt. Ltd., consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year. The fulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

officer for reopening of this assessment. As per section 147 of the Income Tax Act, it is the assessing officer who should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Therefore, in the absence of independent satisfaction of assessing officer that income has escaped assessment, the reopening of assessment ... accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that may have been supplied

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

examined these evidences vis-a-vis the return of income of the assessee. After appraisal of these material on record, there is enough reason to believe that not only the claim of exemption under section 10(38) by the assessee is prima facie bogus but by making such bogus claim ... mislead the revenue, to believe the apparent as real. 4 I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 Rupal Kashyap Mehta In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.5,79,10,300/- has escaped assessment for A. Y. 2011-12 in the case

Yunicorn Synthetics Mills Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6115/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

taken accommodation entries from the accommodation entry provider PKJ and he supported the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has reasonably decided the issue which is proper and reasonable, considering the fact that

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

without any in issuing only bogus bills without any physical delivery of goods, the physical delivery of goods, the Assessing Officer recorded recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment believe that income escaped assessment and and reopened the assessment by way of issue of notice assessment ... leads to unsettling the power on the part of the Assessing Officer, as it leads to unsettling the settled issue/assessments. Therefore, the reasons to believe have to be issue/assessments. Therefore, the reasons to believe have to be issue/assessments. Therefore, the reasons to believe have to be necessarily recorded in terms

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find ... discussed above, there is no merit in the assessee's argument that the payment was made through banking channel is a sufficient reason to believe that the transactions from the above mentioned parties are genuine, especially when the entire gamut of facts and circumstances clearly indicate that these parties

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find ... discussed above, there is no merit in the assessee's argument that the payment was made through banking channel is a sufficient reason to believe that the transactions from the above mentioned parties are genuine, especially when the entire gamut of facts and circumstances clearly indicate that these parties

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find ... discussed above, there is no merit in the assessee's argument that the payment was made through banking channel is a sufficient reason to believe that the transactions from the above mentioned parties are genuine, especially when the entire gamut of facts and circumstances clearly indicate that these parties