← 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

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

calling upon the assessee to furnish documents, accounts and other evidence in support of the return of income filed by him. The “reasons to believe” based on which the A.O had initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act are culled out as under: 5 Rahul Bajpai Vs. ACIT, Circle ... matter, it would beneficial to reproduce the relevant portion of section 147 of the Act. “Section 147:- If the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escape assessment for any assessment year, he may. subject to provision of section 147 to 13 Rahul Bajpai

Avinash Dadhich, Pal Road vs. ACIT, Circle(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

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

ITA 824/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.824/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Avinash Dadhich A-191 Mansarovar Scheme Pal Road, Jodhpur. बनाम The ACIT, Circle, International Taxation, Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:BIFPD2373H निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) (Th. V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh(Addl.CIT) सुनवाई की

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

appellant has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. On the basis of the information gathered and after duly recorded reason to believe and after approval from the competent authority (ie. after getting prior approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Jodhpur-1), notice u/s 148 was issued

Sejal Jignesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that, assessee has shown Short term capital gain of Rs.20,291/-. 5. Section 147 of the Act specifically states that, if AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO subject to provisions of section 148 to 153 of the Act, assess/reassess such ... under section 143(3) has been done. Accordingly, in order to initiate the proceeding under section 147 of the Act, the requirement is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of assessee in making true and full disclosure of total income

M/S Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Major Asha Ram, Tyagi Circle-1, Road, Modinagar Ghaziabad Pan :Aabcm0137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Sh. Rajkumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the learned Assessing Officer thereafter initiated yet another reopening in assessee’s case on 12th February, 2015 after having recorded the corresponding reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed as escaped assessment. 5. It is in this factual drop that Mr. Sampat ... pertains to A.Y. 2009-10.. On the basis of decision of Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, I have reason to believe that the amount of Rs. 21,04,058/- for the assessment year 2009-10 has escaped income within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of 1.T.Act, 1961, which

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45

notice u/s 148, the AO has not satisfied himself that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Satisfaction of the AO and reason to believe are sine qua non for reopening an assessment which has to based upon some tangible material which the AO relies upon and after making ... thus: “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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

course of proceedings in the case of assessee himself in subsequent AY, will constitute fresh tangible material, on the foundation of which a reason to believe can be formed. The AO has aptly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji ... basis of above binding authorities it is found that the AO had tangible fresh material in his hand before he proceeded to form reason to believe. 5.4.5 On the basis of the finding in the subsequent AY 2015-16 and applying the same the same to the facts

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

course of proceedings in the case of assessee himself in subsequent AY, will constitute fresh tangible material, on the foundation of which a reason to believe can be formed. The AO has aptly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji ... basis of above binding authorities it is found that the AO had tangible fresh material in his hand before he proceeded to form reason to believe. 5.4.5 On the basis of the finding in the subsequent AY 2015-16 and applying the same the same to the facts

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 160/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

cannot be held illegal as merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’. As it is held that the formation of reasons to believe by the Ld. AO are correct and in accordance with the mandate of law, the approval granted u/s 151(2) cannot be held as invalid ... case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 IR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression "reason to believe" would mean justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment. While, it is correct that it is not necessary for the Assessing

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 159/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

cannot be held illegal as merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’. As it is held that the formation of reasons to believe by the Ld. AO are correct and in accordance with the mandate of law, the approval granted u/s 151(2) cannot be held as invalid ... case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 IR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression "reason to believe" would mean justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment. While, it is correct that it is not necessary for the Assessing

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 158/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

cannot be held illegal as merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’. As it is held that the formation of reasons to believe by the Ld. AO are correct and in accordance with the mandate of law, the approval granted u/s 151(2) cannot be held as invalid ... case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 IR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression "reason to believe" would mean justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment. While, it is correct that it is not necessary for the Assessing

Jagdish Parshad Jain, Panipat vs. DCIT Central Circle Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

been initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Saharanpur by issuing the notice U/s 148 on dated 06.01.2014 and also recorded reason to believe, that, income has escaped assessment. Thereafter, the whole re-assessment proceedings has been conducted by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Saharanpur, whereas, the assessment

Sunil Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

given to 'H' to prove genuineness of its business transactions, however, it failed to furnish requisite documents Whether therefore, where Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and basis for formation of such belief were several inquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that

Sh. Yugal Kishor Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle 4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

passed u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 even when no addition has been made on the issue which was recorded in reasons to believe for initiating re- assessment proceedings by the Learned Assessing Officer. 3) That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred ... assessee did not explain the sources of investment of Rs.1,37,45,896/- in the share transactions despite given opportunities. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 1.37,45,896/- as mentioned above has escaped assessment within meaning

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-2, Ludhiana vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Ltd, Ludhiana

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 552/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

these Grounds no. 2 and 3, the AR challenged the initiating of proceedings u/s 153C stating that there was no reason to believe for arriving at the conclusion that the reopening of the case u/s 153C was valid. In the assessment order, the AO has clearly mentioned the fact that

Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Limited Society Cinema Ludhiana, Punjab, Ludhiana, Punab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 180/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

these Grounds no. 2 and 3, the AR challenged the initiating of proceedings u/s 153C stating that there was no reason to believe for arriving at the conclusion that the reopening of the case u/s 153C was valid. In the assessment order, the AO has clearly mentioned the fact that

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

observed the often quoted followingrelevant observation:- "It is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Section 148 was valid as the Assessing Officer (AO) obtained the necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) and had reason to believe that an income of Rs.4,32,36,000/- had escaped assessment. Hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the objection as the reopening ... case, applicable legal provisions, and judicial precedents. As per the legal framework the Reassessment can be initiated if the AO has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. When reassessment is initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it must

Vinpack Agro Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ITO 4(1)(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 689/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

return of income or furnish reply/explanation for the said transactions. The assessee has not filed return of income, therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the assessee has taxable income but not disclosed truly and fully by not filing return of income to the extent of Rs.66

Begraj Agarwal & Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Gain while filing the return of income for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, he had reason to believe that the total income under the head capital gain to the tune of ₹94,38,891/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

Murali Krishna Yenugula, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

profits or gains arising from transfer of capital asset held by the assessee. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that an income of Rs.1,45,00,000/- has escaped from assessment due to failure on the part of you to declare fully and truly ... open it is necessary that the conditions laid down in the said section 147 has to be satisfied viz., AO should record “reason to believe” that the income chargeable to tax for that assessment year has escaped assessment. If this condition is not satisfied at the first place, then