← 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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

these facts clearly shows that while reopening of the assessment, there was absolute non application of mind by the JAO, there was no tangible material available with the JAO, the JAO recorded incorrect facts, etc. In the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court ... built test to check abuse of power by Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief”. In the present case

Gaurav Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(3), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5121/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5121/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Gaurav Malhotra, Vs Income Tax Officer, Kg-1, Hans Apartment, Arjun Nagar Ward-58(3), New Delhi-110032 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anrpm4620Q Assessee By: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/107834435 (1) Dated 10.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 292C

dated 19.02.2011 in the name of assessee’s father Sh. V. K. Malhotra. There is again no dispute that even going by relevant tangible material at pages 5, 6 and 7 of the paper book, there is no indication that the impugned payments had been made by the assessee

Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Jalna vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 866/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Act is invalid and bad-in-law as; the notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction, there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to arrive at the satisfaction and the Assessing Officer has not established any live link between the information and the satisfaction that ... Officer, it means that the reopening is based on the borrowed satisfaction = Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 160 taxmann.com 652 (Delhi). (ii) No tangible material before the Assessing Officer to arrive at the satisfaction/conclusion that income of Rs.9.54 lacs has escaped assessment. Assessing Officer has written just a bare

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kawatra Tent and Caterers Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2734/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. D. S. Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

plethora of judgement by the Hon'ble SC & I ICs including that of jurisdictional High Court which states that if there was no new tangible material to justify reopening, reassessment proceedings being a case of change of opinion were not justified; Jetair (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income ... quashed. 5.2.5 In view of the above, it is obvious that the proceedings U/s 148 r.w.s.147 can only be initiated if there is some tangible material on record. There w as no new material which had come to notice of Assessing Officer and entire reference in reasons recorded was only

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Vrajlal Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1132/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

party It is observed that the AO has though relied on such WhatsApp chat but has failed to bring on record any other tangible material to corroborate the fact that the appellant has actually received any amount in addition to the documented value for the sale of such land parcel

ACIT Central Circle 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Arvindkumar Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

party It is observed that the AO has though relied on such WhatsApp chat but has failed to bring on record any other tangible material to corroborate the fact that the appellant has actually received any amount in addition to the documented value for the sale of such land parcel

ACIT Central Circle 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Ashokkumar Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1130/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

party It is observed that the AO has though relied on such WhatsApp chat but has failed to bring on record any other tangible material to corroborate the fact that the appellant has actually received any amount in addition to the documented value for the sale of such land parcel

Give Artisans Trust, Kolhapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 337/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

have not furnish any supporting credible evidences in respect of the activities. Kindly furnish the same. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities and also to ascertain

Poornima Sanjay Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 6Section 69

contended that the reassessment proceedings themselves are invalid ab initio. The notice u/s 148 dated 30/06/2021 was issued without jurisdiction, since there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income in the Appellant’s hands. The entire foundation rests on the mere mention of her name in the Sale

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1640/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1450/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1449/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1448/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1411/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1410/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1409/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case of PCIT vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 304, wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material the ld. AO’s action in reopening the assessment would be mere change of opinion. We also draw support from the decision ... deem it fit to hold that reopening of the assessment in assessee’s case beyond the period of 4 years was without any new tangible material and the ld. AO has also failed to establish how the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all material fact. In view

Pramod Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 46(5), New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal of the assessee succeeds. The same is allowed

ITA 3648/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2010-11 Pramod Gupta, Vs Ito, B-44, Pinnacle, Sector-43, Ward-46(5), Dlf Phase-05, New Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 009. Pan: Aanpg2866P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

submitted that the reasons do not disclose as to what was the mode of taking the accommodation entries and what tangible material of transaction of accommodation entry was relied for making a belief of escapement. It was submitted that the whole belief, in fact, was erroneous as it was mentioned ... subscription to shares on premium or by any other mode. No details of the channel are coming up. There is actually absence of tangible material of the transaction of alleged accommodation entry. 6. Further, the AO mentions that the assessee has not filed its return of income

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Jagat Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2961/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms.RajinderKaur,CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

contrary, the submission of the appellant was that reasons to believe of the learned AO is justiciable and there was no tangible material for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Infact, it is settled law that the reasons to believe must have a 'direct Page

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The power is not akin to a review. The existence of tangible material is necessary to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) (xiii) Other relied upon judgments ... assessment - reasons to believe - accommodation entries addition - Held that:- In the present case, the Court is unable to discern the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the present case too, the information received from the Investigation Wing

Dilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 relating to reopening is not adjudicated, and Ground No

ITA 1542/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the reopening itself was invalid, as there was no tangible material available with the AO to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, and that mere AIR information could not constitute valid “reason ... learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in upholding such reassessment. The appellant submits that there was no tangible material or valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and that the conditions precedent in my case for invoking jurisdiction under section 147 were not satisfied. The reassessment