← 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

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 3331 & 3332/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Mangilal Jain Vs. Acit – 33(1) 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, 103, 1St Floor, Atmaram Sawnt Marg, Eastern House, Kandivali (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj0925G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

belief. 3.3 AO has reproduced the gist of the information received in the assessment order and the reasons recorded for reopening based on the tangible material received by him. Perusal of the reasons recorded clearly shows that the AO has applied his mind on the material received ... KalyanjiMavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference

M/S. Ganpat Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 463/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Ganpat Steel Industries V. Income Tax Officer – 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Office No. 12, Kolsawala Building Mumbai – 400 007 1St Floor, 67, Dr. M.G. Mahimutra Street Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aagfg3758B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By : Shri Vaibhav Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

/148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. (b) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. (c) The initiation of proceeding under section

D. Ravilal Resources Management Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As) M/S. Generic Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 469/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S D Ravilal Resources Vs. Dcit – 10(2) Management Pvt Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan (Formerly Known As M/S. Bkc, Bandra (E) Generic Engineering & Mumbai – 400051. Construction Pvt Ltd) No. A-206, 2Nd Floor, Zest Business Centre, Mg Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg2374E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

Order impugned may be vacated as deserves to be set- aside. TECHNICAL GROUND: Failure of jurisdictional tests 2. Defective Notice u/s. Absence of tangible materials- change of opinion -borrowed information not coming out of AO's own volition - Notice may be quashed. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which ssessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate ... case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which ssessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate ... case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which ssessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate ... case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

Marve Beach Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7830/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemarve Beach Realtors Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(2) Room No. 673 161-C, Mittal Tower, C-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Rajni Patel Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacm6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Narayan Atal Department By : Shri Suresh Periasamy

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

though present assessment is complete u/s.143(1) of the Act, however, with the rule of consistency Assessing Officer has not brought on record any tangible material in support of his opinion that income has escaped assessment. All along the income of the assessee is assessed and relevant expenditures were consistently ... check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Parliament not only deleted

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is 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 conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction ... information from DIT(Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry but and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified. Harikishan

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

aspect submitted that the same was not pleaded before the lower authorities, therefore same should not be admitted. She further submitted that there was tangible material and information on the basis the case was reopened u/s 147 and there is no limitation on the power of the AO to initiate ... date of search and at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 the AO had the jurisdiction on the basis of information and tangible material on record. 11 I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 Rupal Kashyap Mehta 11. After considering the aforesaid submissions and the legal issue raised, we find

Yunicorn Synthetics Mills Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6115/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

drawing inference in the assessment order. 3. Because, the reasons recorded are merely on suspicion, gossip and rumors and is not based upon any tangible material which could lead to inference that any specific transaction with the appellant is bogus. 4. Because, the reasons are general in nature

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case there was no and submitted that in the instant case there was no and submitted that in the instant case there was no tangible material to reopen the assessment. tangible material to reopen the assessment. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that DR on the other ... counsel of the assessee that of the assessee that M/s Paras Plastic Processor M/s Paras Plastic Processor 9 there was no tangible material for reopening the assessment, t there was no tangible material for reopening the assessment, t there was no tangible material for reopening the assessment

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assistant Commissioner of income tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri stockbrokers private limited. k. Further, the investigation made by the Central bureau of investigation is a tangible material available with the assessing officer. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 l. Assessee on the receipt

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assistant Commissioner of income tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri stockbrokers private limited. k. Further, the investigation made by the Central bureau of investigation is a tangible material available with the assessing officer. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 l. Assessee on the receipt

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

assessee were at the instance or on behalf of the foreign company. The initial onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate through some tangible material that the two parties acted in concert and further that there was an agreement to enter into an international transaction concerning advertising, marketing and sales

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

assessee dealt at page 3 and 4 of the assessment order. 3. The A.O. found that the case was reopened based on the tangible material available on record where the assessee in F.Y 2008-09 relevant to A.Y 2009-10, the assessee has issued equity share of Rs.10 paid

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

where in it was held as under:- “The Assessing officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. The validity ... built test to check abuse of power Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer.-power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

where in it was held as under:- “The Assessing officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. The validity ... built test to check abuse of power Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer.-power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

support thereof on record, the CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the addition for being based purely on suspicion and not on any tangible material. 12.10 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessee has been diligently filing statutory returns/statements with the Department of Mines, Govt. of Karnataka

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

taken approval in accordance with law and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. He also observed that there was tangible material found during the course of search operation conducted on Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and is revealed that they are carrying out accommodation entries of bogus sales /bogus

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing any fresh and tangible material on record. Further, the appellant has disclosed all material facts fully and truly during the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the act. “ 05. Brief ... September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid