← 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

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

that any expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have proceeded merely on presumptions, without any tangible material to support the estimation. In the absence of any concrete evidence and in view of the accepted fact that the trip was funded

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2 Chd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

that any expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have proceeded merely on presumptions, without any tangible material to support the estimation. In the absence of any concrete evidence and in view of the accepted fact that the trip was funded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Artex Textile Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

circumstantial evidences as noted above. 10.2 The Revenue, in our view, has based itself findings on suspicion and conjectures and on improper rejection of tangible material. The assessee on the other hand has successfully demonstrated the propriety of cash sales by corresponding purchases, reduction in stock and declaration of profits ... instant case, has sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash deposits. On a broader reckoning, the apprehension raised by the Revenue authorities militates against the tangible material and is thus extraneous." 21. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT (A) on Ground

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

case of ACIT Vs. Kanga & Co. 2010-TIOL-464-ITAT-Mumbai held that for reopening of assessment u/s,148 of the Act, the 'Tangible material' need not be from outside the return of income. 5.2.7 When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings ... assessee chargeable to tax was based on a reference to the record for the subsequent year, but the same, in absence of any “tangible material” coming on record subsequent to the framing of the original assessment for the subject year is merely a fresh application of mind to the same

Sanjay Singal (HUF), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

which reliance has been placed, were not provided; (ix) The Assessing Officer has simply levelled bald allegations on the basis of presumptions without any tangible material on record; (x) The transaction for shares were entered into the ordinary course and were at an arms length; (xi) There is no evidence ... open to the Revenue to simply allege that the transactions is not real in a given case, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. 9.8 In this regard the following paras of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in ITANo. 655/CHD/2023 and 610/CHD/2023 merit

Sanjay Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

which reliance has been placed, were not provided; (ix) The Assessing Officer has simply levelled bald allegations on the basis of presumptions without any tangible material on record; (x) The transaction for shares were entered into the ordinary course and were at an arms length; (xi) There is no evidence ... open to the Revenue to simply allege that the transactions is not real in a given case, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. 9.8 In this regard the following paras of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in ITANo. 655/CHD/2023 and 610/CHD/2023 merit

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

which reliance has been placed, were not provided; (ix) The Assessing Officer has simply levelled bald allegations on the basis of presumptions without any tangible material on record; (x) The transaction for shares were entered into the ordinary course and were at an arms length; (xi) There is no evidence ... open to the Revenue to simply allege that the transactions is not real in a given case, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. 9.8 In this regard the following paras of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in ITANo. 655/CHD/2023 and 610/CHD/2023 merit

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

which reliance has been placed, were not provided; (ix) The Assessing Officer has simply levelled bald allegations on the basis of presumptions without any tangible material on record; (x) The transaction for shares were entered into the ordinary course and were at an arms length; (xi) There is no evidence ... open to the Revenue to simply allege that the transactions is not real in a given case, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. 9.8 In this regard the following paras of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in ITANo. 655/CHD/2023 and 610/CHD/2023 merit

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

which reliance has been placed, were not provided; (ix) The Assessing Officer has simply levelled bald allegations on the basis of presumptions without any tangible material on record; (x) The transaction for shares were entered into the ordinary course and were at an arms length; (xi) There is no evidence ... open to the Revenue to simply allege that the transactions is not real in a given case, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. 9.8 In this regard the following paras of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in ITANo. 655/CHD/2023 and 610/CHD/2023 merit

ACIT Central Circle 7 4, Mumbai vs. Zytex Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri, Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50(2)Section 50B

Learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid, despite the discovery of fresh tangible material Zytex Biotech Private Ltd. during the survey under Section 133A, which demonstrated that the assessee had misclassified the transaction as a slump sale instead ... justified in concluding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a "change of opinion," despite the fact that fresh tangible material emerged after the original assessment under Section 143(3), specifically from the survey action under Section 133A, thereby validating the reopening as per the provisions

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

well on facts of the case by re-opening the assessment on the basis of vague information and vague reasons without any tangible material or independent application of mind but on borrowed satisfaction, suspicion and surmises which is not correct as well as untenable in law. For this ground ... that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer, said iriformation could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified." The information from the Investigation Wing was only a cause for suspicion

Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountannt Member Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Hence, the ld. A.R. submitted that the I.T.A No. 806/Ahd/2024 Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, A.Y. 2015-16 Assessing Officer do not have any tangible material or information based upon which he can form a belief of escapement of income chargeable to tax. The ld. A.R. submitted that merely because

ACIT, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai vs. Railroad Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaracit Vs. Railroad Logistics India Room No. 607, Aayakar Pvt Ltd Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai C/O, Metal Trim, Gala – 400020. No.1, Tankiwala Indl Estate, Steel Made Compound, Marol, Maroshi Road, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccr3484J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish R. Mody, Adv. Revenue By Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 07.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. Both The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Terming The Order Passed By Ao As Infructuous.

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

made on the 20% of the total withdrawal of Rs. 5,85, 10,996/-. 11. It is evident that there has been no new tangible material available for the Id. AO for reopening assessee's case as even during the original assessment proceedings, the Id. AO was well within

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

quashed. ii. Vijay Ramanlal Sanghvi (2023) 457 ITR 791 (Guj HC) wherein it was held that in absence of any tangible material to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer by merely relying upon information received

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

quashed. ii. Vijay Ramanlal Sanghvi (2023) 457 ITR 791 (Guj HC) wherein it was held that in absence of any tangible material to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer by merely relying upon information received

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 91/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

respect of assessment which has already been completed simply relying upon the valuation report and there was no tangible material on record to suggest that any amount was available for making such investment. 7.2 Attention is invited to various judicial pronouncements by different courts of law, wherein, it has been

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

respect of assessment which has already been completed simply relying upon the valuation report and there was no tangible material on record to suggest that any amount was available for making such investment. 7.2 Attention is invited to various judicial pronouncements by different courts of law, wherein, it has been

Baldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 199/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 199/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldeep Singh, The Acit, C/O Tej Mohan Singh, बनाम Circle 5(1), Advocate Chandigarh Vs. #527, Sector 10-D. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adyps3636F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A)-1. Nagpur For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

hence deserve to be quashed as such. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no tangible material on record to form a "reason to believe" that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 127, 90 & 91 /Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 AFI Feed Industries Shop No. 13, Khanna City Centre, G.T. Road, Ground Floor, Bolck-C, Khanna, Punjab-141401 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABDFA5916B अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-l Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

respect of assessment which has already been completed simply relying upon the valuation report and there was no tangible material on record to suggest that any amount was available for making such investment. 7.2 Attention is invited to various judicial pronouncements by different courts of law, wherein, it has been

Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Aviral Marketing Pvt. Ltd…….……………..............................……….……Appellant 7, Camac Street, Azimganj House, 1St Floor, Shakespeare Sarani, Kol- 700017. [Pan: Aacca3794N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 03, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there is no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the tangible material which form the basis of reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and further held that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer are at best ... conclusion in the investigation report and indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction as the reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. 7.2 Similarly, in the case of PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India