← 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

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

this case, the department had information in its possession that the Assessee had income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, there were reasons to believe that the Assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that Assessment year. After recording satisfaction "reasons ... during the F.Y. 2012-13 but he has not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14, hence I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.26,94,618/- has escaped assessment. Copy of reasons recorded is enclosed(PB18-19). In response to the notice

Mr. Gaurav Rajendra Malu, Jaysingpur vs. PCIT, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

therefore are of the 6 Gaurav Rajendra Malu considered view that reopening was not based on any borrowed satisfaction rather ld. AO has reason to believe that there is possible escapement of income in the form of bogus long term capital gain. He therefore issued notice u/s.148

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Vijay Security Systems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle-(3)(3)(1) Vijay Security Systems Private Room No. 552, Aayakar Limited, 35 Chandivali Village Off Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Churchgate, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacv1363L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Sandeep Chaturvedi Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue / Assessing Officer Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 24.01.2025 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ (1) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Treating The Assessment Completed Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act Disregarding The Fact That Desired Details Called For Were Not Submitted Before The Ao I.E. Ito-11(3)(3) Having Jurisdiction Over The Case?" (Ii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Not Deciding The Appeal On Merit Of The Additions Made By Ao & In Fact, Not Considering The Fact That The Information Of Obtaining Accommodation Bills Towards Alleged Bogus Purchases Was Received From The Sales Department?" (Iii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Fact That The Genuineness Of The Details Submitted By The Assessee During Remand Proceedings By The Assessee Officer Could Not Be Ascertained In The Absence Of Parties Involved & The Same Was Not Questioned As Well By The Ld.Cit(A)?" Acit Vs Vijay Security Services (Iv) "The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Vary Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

Packaging, which were identified by Sales tax Department as entry provider. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer (AO) has a reason to believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment within meaning of 147. Notice under section 148 dated 14.03.2014 was served upon the assessee. In response

Kandarp Hasmukh Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32 2 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 4457/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

27790284742V | KWALITY ENTERPRISE | 239,226 | 27310687071V | RATNAKAR TRADERS | 1,301,950 | | 12,893,048 3. From the above facts, the AO had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 04.03.2015 was issued for reopening

Shanker Lal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3808/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

Section 147

income of Rs. 5,18,520/- on 30.03.2013 and no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. 4. Consequently, considering the facts of the case, I am satisfied and have reasons to believe that the income

Shri Atul Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

been passed U/S 143(3) read with Sec 148, and there is no escapement of Income as per Reason to Believe recorded by A.O. then no other matter can be subject to examination / verification in reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings ... dated 17.07.2019 & 23.07.2019 as noted above. It is very strange to note that despite mentioning in point 3 of the reasons to believe that Income has escaped Assessment for Α.Υ. 2012-13, that the Assessee had cash deposits to be explained, the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra completed

Smt. Sarika Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

been passed U/S 143(3) read with Sec 148, and there is no escapement of Income as per Reason to Believe recorded by A.O. then no other matter can be subject to examination / verification in reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings ... dated 17.07.2019 & 23.07.2019 as noted above. It is very strange to note that despite mentioning in point 3 of the reasons to believe that Income has escaped Assessment for Α.Υ. 2012-13, that the Assessee had cash deposits to be explained, the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra completed

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

deposit of old and new currency and the ld. AO could only make the addition under section 68 if he had a reason to believe that the entries were not genuine. However, the ld. AO had not made any such enquiry and therefore, section 68 could not apply

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

interest, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D amounting to Rs. 706466/- is to be disallowed. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: (i) According to section 2(47)(iv) of the Act, if capital asset is converted into stock-in- trade ... under the head income from capital gain (the amount is not earned by way sale of land). Therefore, I have a reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 43,11,1816/- has escaped assessment under the head capital gain. (ii) Scrutiny of records, it was noticed from the assets

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 25% only.” 6.1 The AO is empowered to initiate penalty proceedings u/s.147 of the Act if there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax in respect of relevant assessment year had escaped assessment. The expression ‘reason to believe’ in section

Mahendra Kumar, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

ITA 812/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

significant financial transactions of unaccounted cash of Rs.16,85,18,922. In para 2, the ld. AO has stated that he has a reason to believe that the unaccounted income of the assessee during the year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. In para 3 of the reasons, the AO states ... income. He referred to para 3 of the reasons recorded. He further submitted that in para 2 the AO has recorded his reason to believe that the unaccounted income of assessee during AY 2016-17 has escaped Page 7 of 13 assessment. But in fact, the reassessment notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3111/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO made the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO had the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO made the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO had the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3109/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO made the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO had the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3107/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO made the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO had the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO made the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding the re-opening of assessments as bad in law and change of opinion without appreciating that the AO had the reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1118/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Acit Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ground Floor, New Era House, Churchgate – 400020. Vs. Mogul Lane, Matunga (W), Mumbai – 400016. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj2082J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir Shah Respondent By : Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Along With Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting Transactions Of Rs. 2,12,42,250/-In Nsel Exchange As Client Code Modification Transaction For Shifting Of Profit/ Loss Added To The Income Of The Assessee Relying On The Decision In The Case Of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit 390 Itr 464 (Bom.) Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case? Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

reopening are based on tangible material and when the information is specific and not vague, the information received can be based for the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, thereby making a reopening valid and in accordance with law. The ld. DR stated that the said decision ... escape assessment of a 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. 5. In the above view, prima facie, we are of the view that the impugned notice

Mammayil Thekkepurayil Manshoor, Kannur vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Kochi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 681/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 149Section 27Section 5(2)

contending as follows: - i) The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was barred by limitation and also there was no reasons to believe that income escaped assessment to tax as ultimately the AO completed the assessment proceedings by resorting to protective assessment. ii) In case of a non-resident ... reassessment proceedings were initiated after expiry of a period of 6 years and also for the reason that the AO had no reason to believe that the income charged to tax escaped assessment as he himself 4 Mammayil Thekepurayil Manshoor resorted to protective assessment. On merits he submitted that

Mammayil Thekkepurayil Manshoor, Kannur vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Kochi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 679/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 149Section 27Section 5(2)

contending as follows: - i) The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was barred by limitation and also there was no reasons to believe that income escaped assessment to tax as ultimately the AO completed the assessment proceedings by resorting to protective assessment. ii) In case of a non-resident ... reassessment proceedings were initiated after expiry of a period of 6 years and also for the reason that the AO had no reason to believe that the income charged to tax escaped assessment as he himself 4 Mammayil Thekepurayil Manshoor resorted to protective assessment. On merits he submitted that

Jai Prakash Shahani, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 37

proceedings, thereby also erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings even when: (i) the Learned AO did not provided the exact, proper and signed 'reasons to believe as might have been recorded and only provided an abstract thereof and the abstract so provided was not having any document identification number ... failed to make independent application of mind and verify the Income Tax Return and assessment records and there was no proper reason to believe to reopen the assessment proceedings. She also stated that the approval u/s 151 of the Act is also mechanical in nature. She further stated that