“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

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Assessing Officer was in possession of tangible material in the form of investigation reports which suggested that the assessee had entered into suspicious financial transactions involving accommodation entries. In response ... records, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the notice under section 148 was duly issued and served, that the reopening was based on tangible material received from the Investigation Wing, and Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 that the Assessing Officer had formed a bona fide belief

Dushyantbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

required to be deleted. 02. That the Ld. assessing officer has re-open the case of the appellant after 4 years without any tangible material on record and hence the re-opening itself is bad in law illegal and required to be quashed. 03. That the reasons recorded to reopening

Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

Asst. Year–2022-23 - 13– recorded amounts, sections 69B and 115BBE cannot be invoked. The ratio therein that the Assessing Officer must first bring tangible material evidencing unrecorded investment before shifting the burden upon the assessee squarely applies in the present case. 7.3 Similarly, the Bangalore Bench in Ramachandra Setty

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries on account of bogus purchases without carrying out independent enquiry and bringing on record tangible material to conclusively establish the fact that purchases were bogus. Merely relying upon information from Sales Tax Department or fact that parties were not produced

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

held that reopening made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction cannot be sustained where the reasons failed to demonstrate live link between the tangible material and formation of the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, as under:- “26. The first part of Section ... condition to the assumption of ju- risdiction under Section 147 of the Act. The reasons to believe must demon- strate link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. ……………… 36. In the present case, as already noticed

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farukhabad vs. Assessing Officer, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

year under consideration. The reasons does not state from whom the said unsecured loans were received by the assessee. There is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld AO suggesting some escapement of income so as to enable the ld AO to form a belief that income ... Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) on the aspect of requirement of tangible material for reopening and on change of opinion; b. Decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vipin Khanna

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

ACIT Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Jayesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6588/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarjayesh Umakant Acit Circle-20(1) Manania Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 131-6, Mani Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Jain Society, Sion Mumbai-400 012 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan/Gir No. Aacpm0547J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

admitted the additional legal grounds and after considering the detailed submissions held that the reassessment under section 147 was valid and the AO had tangible material sufficient to form the requisite belief. However, on merits, he gave relief to the assessee by deleting the addition

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

under section 147. The reassessment can only be initiated if the Assessing Officer forms a bona fide and independent ‘reason to believe’, based on tangible material which has came to his notice. There are two essential condition i.e. existence of fresh ‘tangible material’ and formation of independent belief by Assessing

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

assessment proceedings-initiated u/s. 147 of the I.T Act, 1961 for AY.- 2009-10 are null and void. The AO did not have tangible material to form a ‘reason to believe’ that income for AY.- 2009-10 had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer accepted the allegation made in the Justice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Shri Dinesh Kumar Sanghai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-23(3), Mumbai

ITA 6346/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153CSection 69

appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s 148 stating that AO has tangible material at its possession at the time of reopening of the assessment without considering that mere information' on 'Insight Portal' of the department ... search on 'Rajesh Investment' and having filled a settlement petition before 'Settlement Commission' offering to tax certain cash loans is not a tangible material. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that notice u/s 148 being issued on 28-07-22 after lapse of 3 years from end of assessment

Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambledhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 505, Padshani Pole, Kalupur, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aadcd 8007 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the reassessment was initiated merely on the basis of suspicion, without any tangible material linking the alleged bogus nature of transaction with Shri Kirit D. Patel to the assessee’s books of accounts. The Ld. AR submitted that ... same have not been rebutted by the Revenue with any contrary evidence. Further, the reopening was based merely on suspicion and not on any tangible material indicating escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Once the transactions were fully examined in the original assessment proceedings, reopening

Kutch Leafin Limited, Delhi vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1738/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalkutch Leafin Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4754-57/123, 3Rd Floor, T-8, Ward 2(1)(1), Akarshan Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Ahmedabad Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002 [Pan :Aabcm 3733 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

information from the Investigation Wing, without Kutch Leafin Limited Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– any independent application of mind, verification, OR tangible material, rendering the reopening bad in law. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in making an arbitrary and ad hoc addition of 1% of total bank

Dy. Commissioner, DCIT Central vs. Cable Corporation India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5126/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai Cable Corporation Of India Limited, 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building, Room No. 806, Old Cgo Building Vs Pratistha Bhawan M.K. Road, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400001 (Pan:Aaac C2936 J) Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 37

which was retracted on 02.03.2022. Despite retracting tainted deposition his statement was neither confronted with senior members of Khatau Group nor corroborative with tangible material. The ld. CIT(A) also referred the CBDT Circular dated 18.12.2024 wherein the investigation team is directed for collecting evidence instead of obtaining disclosure