← All Phrases

“tangible material”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,812 judgments

The decision most relied on for tangible material is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tangible material

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Judgments citing tangible material

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

ground that re-opening of assessment has been carried out on the basis of ‘change of opinion’ without there being any fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income. The assessee had also challenged re-assessment on the ground that the assessment has been re-opened after a period ... opened, is illogical and devoid of merits. Further, the assessments have been re-opened for these two assessment years on the basis of fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income on account of under assessment rental income and said escapement of income was noticed during the course of survey

Pooja Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(2)(5), (Current Juridiction: Ward-41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3690/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Pooja Developers बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(5) Shop No. 4 (Damini Wines) [Current Jurisdiction Vs. Shiv Shakti Building, Jn Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai] Road, Near Apna Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaifp5595M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801B(10)Section 80I

materials on record and thirdly, whether the re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is on the basis of some tangible material. Before proceeding further On the issue, it is necessary to look into the reasons for re- opening of assessment as reproduced by the Assessing Officer ... formed by the Assessing Officer on the issue during the original assessment proceedings. At this stage, it has to be seen whether any tangible material came to the possession of the Assessing Officer post completion of original assessment which could have enabled him to re-open the assessment under section

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Presently Circle-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 201(1)Section 40

assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts and that will have to be proceeded by spelling out the tangible material that led the A.O. to come to that conclusion. (ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bhavesh Developers vs. A.O. reported

Reena Rakesh Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Reena Rakesh Kothari Income Tax Officer 28-A, Kamgar Nagar, Ward 26(2)(5), S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Kurla (East), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahlpk7422J Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law CIT – A order in confirming the validity of notice under section 148 issued in absence of tangible material and in mechanical manner without obtaining the sanction under section 151 from the correct higher authority.” 03. Facts as noted from the record shows that ... assessee. Assessee pressed into service several judicial precedents. The assessee also submitted that the notice under section 148 has been issued in absence of tangible material coming into the possession of the assessee and there is a borrowed satisfaction by the learned assessing officer. It was also claim that when

Anita Chauhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

void ab initio and only deserves to be quashed as addition made by AO is not based on any tangible material required under sec. 144 of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal

Kantaba Paxighar and Patel Kalabhai Atmaramdas Balvatika Akhaj, Mehsana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Office Of Public Trusts Registration, Mehsana. This Trust Was Created On 04.01.2015 For The Welfare Of The Birds & Children. The Assessee Trust Filed Its Application For Registration U/S. 12Ab Of The Act On 30.08.2022 In Form 10Ab Read With Rule 17A Of The Income Tax Rules In The Name Of Kantaba Paxighar & Patel Kalabhai Atmaramdas Val Vatika Akhaj, Mehsana (The Word “Trust” Is Missing). The Ld. Cit(E) Issued A Notice Dated 17.11.2022 Through Itba Portal Asking The Assessee Trust To Furnish Detailed Note On The Activities Actually Carried Out By It As Well As Certain Details/Documents As Mentioned Therein.

Section 12A

activities of the trust. 2 The CIT(Exemption) has erred in law, in overlooking and in summarily rejecting and not considered, the tangible material submitted during the proceeding u/s. 12AB of Income Tax Act. 1961. 3 Your appellant crave, leave to add, alter, & or to amend, modify, substitute

Aashadi Kartiki Wari Mahamandal Samiti, Jabalpur vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/IND/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaashadi Kartiki Wari Cit(E) Mohamandal Samiti Bhopal Vs. Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aamaa6408M Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 12A

adjournment by the appellant. 2. The Hon. CIT(Exemption) has erred in law, in over looking and in summarily rejecting and not considered, the tangible material already submitted during the proceedings of Provisional registration and also alongwith the application form u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Hon.CIT

Abhishek Tejraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

information from the investigation wing. The statements made by brokers in no way related to the appellant, or his transactions cannot be considered as tangible material to form a belief that the income has escaped assessment. No copies of statements are provided to appellant thereby not providing cross examination

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3583/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uspragati Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. Acit, Spl. Range 7, Himadari Rajghat Power House Office Complex, New Delhi. Rajghat, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaccp8035F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date Of Order : 18.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Full compliance was done to the notices and queries raised by AO during the course of original assessment proceedings; (iii) There is no fresh tangible material distinct from what was very much available at the time of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act; It is relevant to note ... failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts of the case; and (iii) When there is no fresh tangible material distinct from what was very much available, the reopening in such circumstances is impermissible. 5 4. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied

Gujarat Industries Power Co.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 3049/AHD/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 3049 & 3050/Ahd/2010 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (1998-1999 & 1999 & 2000) Gujarat Industries Power Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, P.O Petrochemicals, Circle-1(1), Baroda-391346. Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 147Section 148

appeal, it is contended that the AO has no power to reassess or review his order and he can reassess provided there is tangible material to conclude escapement of income. The decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 187 Taxman 313 (SC) was relied upon. 4.3 I have carefully ... assessee before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 33 and contended that there was no tangible material available with the AO for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR further contended that all the details of other income were available

Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kulbharat & Dr.B. R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Decent Financial Services Dcit Pvt. Ltd. A-86, Dda Shed, Vs Circle – 7 (1) Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd2899P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: (1) On the fact and circumstances of the ease and in law, the
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

without appreciating the fact that the learned assessing officer reopened the concludes assessment only on the base of change of opinion rather having any tangible material hand which firm the basis of reason to believe which is highly unjustified and unwarranted. (7) On the fact and circumstances of the case

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 503/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(1)Section 80ISection 80l

advanced arguments and submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the required particulars of income. Further, no tangible material came into possession of Ld. AO to form an opinion of escapement of income. Therefore, the reopening ... reassessment proceedings could not be upheld for this reason alone. 8. Even otherwise also, the perusal of recorded reasons would show that no new tangible material has come into the possession of Ld. AO which would indicated any escapement of income. There is no allegation in the reasons

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

believe that income has escaped assessment. b.The Ld AO erred in reopening the assessment is mere change of opinion and is without any tangible material to substantiate that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. c.The Ld AO has incorrectly assumed jurisdiction by initiating the assessment beyond 4 years ... been submitted that reopening was beyond 4 years and the case has been reopened on mere change of opinion without there being any tangible material on record. To support the same, Ld. AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee

Rani Goenka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other and there was no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the conclusions

M/S. Indovision Securities Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1353/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1353/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Indovision Securities Ltd….…………............…...……………....Appellant Block B, Suit No.1A, 1St Floor Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Isi P.O S.O, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaaci5310G] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 196 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte When No Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing I.T.A. No.1353/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Indovision Securities Ltd. Officer. The reasons to believe does

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

above discussion, I find that the addition made by the AO is based on estimates and is not actually based on any tangible material unearthed during the course of search. Thus, there is neither any basis nor justification for the additions made by the AO of Rs.66 ... hold that there is no scope of extrapolation in the search assessment based solely on assumptions and surmises in the absence of any tangible material qua the relevant assessment year. 14. We have perused the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) carefully and see no reason to depart

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Insofar as validity and jurisdiction of reopening proceedings ts concerned, the Appellant Assessee submits as under: 2.6.1. Proposition 1: In absence of new tangible material, reopening u/s 147 is bad in law: The Appellant Assessee submits that the Ld. AO has not pointed out any new material based on which ... reopened the Appellant Assessee's case. Therefore, reopening in the absence of new tangible material is bad in law. In support of the same, the Appellant Assessee places reliance on the decisions cited in the legal chart and legal compilation submitted at bar during the course of the hearing