tangible material — 2,812 case laws

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 7424/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6838/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

M/S Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court, before embarking upon a benchmarking analysis, the Revenue needs to demonstrate on the basis of tangible material or evidence that there exists an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Needless to mention, that the existence of such a transaction cannot ... Whirlpool USA. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that the initial onus is 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 AMP expenses

Eknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, Maharashtra vs. Ngp-W-(102)(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 410/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleeknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, 1, Jaipur, B.O. Washim -444507, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra, Pan-Cippk2836K V/S I T O Ward 10(2), Bsnl Rtc Building, ……………. Respondent Civil Lines,Nagpur-444000, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Ms.Madhavi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer has erred in recording reasons for reopening in the standard template, merely on surmises and conjectures withoutany tangible material and mechanically, without any independent application of mind 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

advance information during survey on 22.09.2015 that the assessee had booked bogus expenses/loss? The case of assessee had been re-opened without any material/ tangible material; on mere suspicion; and for making Page 6 of 49 Santosh Rathore ITA No. 451/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16 enquiries/verification, which is not permitted under ... information obtained has been mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Thus, assessment is reopened on the basis of without any tangible material and as such reassessment is not valid. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 183/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54BSection 54B(1)(i)

fact that the Revenue failed to prove that the land in dispute was not used for the purpose of agricultural operations by bringing tangible material on record which can be used against the assessee and against the form 7/12 along with form 8 available on record. Relevant portion ... onus is upon the revenue to prove that the land in dispute was not used for the purpose of agricultural operations by bringing tangible material on record which can be used against the assessee and against the form 7/12 along with form 8 available on record. In the case

Ramalingam Ellalan, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1129/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1129/Chny/2025 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Ramalingam Ellalan, The Assistant Commissioner 279/1, Sathy Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Erode – 638 003. Central Circle-2 Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aafpe-9379-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Since the same was not disclosed by the assessee in the original return of income filed, the said impounded material in survey certainly becomes tangible material in the possession of the Learned AO to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Hence the grounds challenging the validity of assumption

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held the notice u/s 148 as invalid, since had been issued in absence of tangible material and without independent application of mind and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances ... order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s objections relating to the reopening of assessment are disposed off as under: 5.1 Absence of Tangible material for reopening: Ld. AR has submitted that the reopening was based on generic data without any specific or credible material to justify the notice issued

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

issuance of notice u/s 148. 2.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in absence of tangible material assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 is bad in law. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating ... assessment deserves to be held to bad in law. He further submits a written submission in this regard which reads as under: “1. No Tangible Material with AO justifying assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act- In this case the basis for assumption of jurisdiction

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

issuance of notice u/s 148. 2.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in absence of tangible material assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 is bad in law. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating ... assessment deserves to be held to bad in law. He further submits a written submission in this regard which reads as under: “1. No Tangible Material with AO justifying assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act- In this case the basis for assumption of jurisdiction

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

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

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

information given by internal audit party was valid in law" (ii) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee on 9 March, 2015 (ITAT Delhi) -As this tangible material, in the shape of audit objection, came into existence after the completion of the original assessment and led to the initiation of reassessment

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 602/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 534/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

“tangible material”

Leading authorities on tangible material

Judgments citing tangible material

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

M/S Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

Eknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, Maharashtra vs. Ngp-W-(102)(2), Nagpur

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

Ramalingam Ellalan, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur