“tangible material”

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

sufficiency of material is not to be examined and that the Assessing Officer is only required to form a prima facie belief based on tangible material. According to the learned DR, whether the amount of ₹20,00,000/- was ultimately received as share application money is a matter

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Officer is only required to form a prima facie belief based on Officer is only required to form a prima facie belief based on tangible material. According to the learned DR, tangible material. According to the learned DR, whether the amount whether the amount of ₹20,00,000/– was ultimately ... assessee during the year under consideration. assessee during the year under consideration. What is required is What is required is the existence of tangible material the existence of tangible material having a live link with the having a live link with the formation of belief that income has escaped assessment

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Hindustan Construction Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Limited Circle 14(1)(1), Hincon House Lbs Marg, Mumbai Vs. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 (Pan: Aaach0968B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

case of the assessee falls within this requirement. According to the assessee, it is a case of change of opinion with no new fresh tangible material brought on record for invoking reopening proceedings which is admittedly beyond period of four years from the end of the year under consideration ... material which forms the basis for the ld. Assessing Officer to arrive at a reason to believe which is a new, fresh tangible material surfacing out after the completion of regular assessment leading to formation of such a belief. What has been referred by the ld. Assessing Officer

Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi Ito,Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai Gr. Floor, Shreeji Kripa Building, Vs Room No. 609, Piramal 9, Kumbhar Tukda, Bhuleshwar, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004. Maharashtra – 400012. [Pan No. Aabpd1392D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without any tangible material. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals), Addl/ JCIT(A)-1, Noida has erred

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

record, if such material existed.” 23. It is therefore, clear that the basis for a valid re-opening of assessment should be availability of tangible material, which can lead the AO to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section ... called for. ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain 29. Another aspect which should not be lost sight of is that the information or "Tangible material which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large

Zany Share Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-8(3)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s.148, issued in absence of tangible material, without independent application of mind and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case

Maharashtra Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

upheld the reopening of assessment under section 147, holding that the information regarding bogus purchases and the statement of the Director constituted tangible material sufficient to form a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment. On merits, the CIT(A) observed that the replies given by the Director