“reason to believe”

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

that the assessing officer did not entertain belief that there was escapement of income in these three years. In the absence of any reason to believe that there was escapement of income, we are of the view that the reopening of assessments of these three years

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

that the assessing officer did not entertain belief that there was escapement of income in these three years. In the absence of any reason to believe that there was escapement of income, we are of the view that the reopening of assessments of these three years

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

that the assessing officer did not entertain belief that there was escapement of income in these three years. In the absence of any reason to believe that there was escapement of income, we are of the view that the reopening of assessments of these three years

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

that the assessing officer did not entertain belief that there was escapement of income in these three years. In the absence of any reason to believe that there was escapement of income, we are of the view that the reopening of assessments of these three years

Gold Ancher Exim Private Limited, Khar West - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

report and review identical issues for entire addition of bogus purchases. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid details stated above, I have reasons to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

prior period expenditure of Rs. 1.12 crore is not added back to the total income. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 98.40 crores (approx.) has escaped assessment for AY 2004-05. Therefore, the assessment is hereby reopened

Asia Society India Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

which the entire past accumulated income falls to be taxed, it is impermissible in law for the assessing officer to entertain a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01 had escaped assessment. The statute has imposed a fetter ... conditions for the applicability of section 147 are (a) income chargeable to tax must have escaped assessment and (6) assessing officer must have reason to believe so. When 8 Assessment Year 2012-2013 section 11(3) treats the accumulated income of the past year of the petitioner as income

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

pending as informed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the written submission filed before us. 2.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2018. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that ... Lordships have held that when the assessment is sought to be reopened within a period of four years, then what is required is 'reason to believe' but not established fact of escapement of income. At this stage of issue of notice, the only question is where there is relevant material

Mili Sameer Joshi, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed on merits

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

Assessee has not disclosed the details of above transaction in the return for the A.Y. 2016-17 and therefore by forming the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act due to failure ... premises was analysed and in the said analyses, the appellant was found to be the beneficiary of the said bogus transactions. Thus, the reason to believe was recorded on the basis of information received by the AO from the Investigation Wing. 8.1 The appellant's name was found as beneficiary