← 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

Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which capital gain declared was already considered and assessed in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act and no tangible material was brought on record before initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Ld.AR drew our attention to the computation of income of the assessment

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re~open, 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 ... review would take place. 12. Therefore, it is clear, a reassessment made within four years or beyond four years has to be based on tangible material de hors that is available on record that has come to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Recourse to proceedings for reassessment is available

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material ... such satisfaction should not be a mere repetition of the report of the investigation. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.” Thereafter, our attention was drawn

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 758/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material ... such satisfaction should not be a mere repetition of the report of the investigation. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.” 8. Thereafter, our attention was drawn

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 339/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material ... such satisfaction should not be a mere repetition of the report of the investigation. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.” 8. Thereafter, our attention was drawn

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 338/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material ... such satisfaction should not be a mere repetition of the report of the investigation. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.” 8. Thereafter, our attention was drawn

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

allow cross examination of the finance brokers. The AO has relied on the statements of the finance brokers even though there was no tangible material in respect of the assessee in such statements. Therefore, it was necessary to allow cross examination. Reference can be made to the judgement

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

allow cross examination of the finance brokers. The AO has relied on the statements of the finance brokers even though there was no tangible material in respect of the assessee in such statements. Therefore, it was necessary to allow cross examination. Reference can be made to the judgement

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 19, New Delhi

ITA 2284/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis of which formed reason to believe that income of appellant has escaped assessment. As the material and the reason ... purchase by assessee received by Raheja Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was held to be 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. (c) In the case of Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs DCIT[2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 19, Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis of which formed reason to believe that income of appellant has escaped assessment. As the material and the reason ... purchase by assessee received by Raheja Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was held to be 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. (c) In the case of Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs DCIT[2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat