← 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

Miker Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward-10(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 849/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case and reopening of assessment is without any application of mind and merely reason to suspect based on borrowed satisfaction without any tangible material and no such material or evidence or any other documents furnished to the Appellant and hence, the reopening of the assessment

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening proceedings even when no new tangible material was found, and the reopening was based on materials already on record. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... further grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B even when there was no new tangible material and by disposing off the objections raised by the assessee in a mechanical manner. The Ld. AO added to income of foreign branches with whom

Manish Kumar Verma, Gwalior vs. ITO1(1), Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 83/AGR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.83/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sh. Manish Kumar Verma Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ J-15, Site No. 1, City Centre, Ward 1(1), Gwalior. Near Honda Showroom, Vs. Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abdpv-8563-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. M.K. Agarwal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 18-03- 2014. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Disallowance U/S 40A(3) For Rs.14.13 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. The Assessee Is Stated To Be Carrying Out Retail Trade Of Gold & Silver Jewellery. The Assessee Did Not Maintain Books Of Accounts & Declared Income U/S 44Af.

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Agarwal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 44A

assessment order. The Ld. AO has merely made disallowance u/s 40A(3) which is against accounted purchases only. Further, there is no new tangible material before Ld. AO to form a belief that the income had escaped assessment. For these reasons alone, the assessment is liable to the quashed

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

allegation that the assessee failed to make full and true disclosure of particulars of its income. The Ld. AR also stated that no fresh tangible material came into the possession of Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee. We concur with both these arguments. Upon perusal of orders ... lower authorities, it could be ascertained that there was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate entire proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India

M/S Agra Products Pvt.Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Deputy C.I.T Circle -2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The reasons do not indicate any event as to the receipt of any fresh tangible material coming to the possession of Ld. AO subsequent to culmination of original assessment proceedings. Apparently, the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated on audit objection without there ... being any fresh or tangible material on record. This being the case, reopening would be nothing but mere change of opinion on existing material which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (187 Taxman 312). In this decision, it was held

M/S Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 348/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 07Section 143(3)Section 194I

Apparently, the case has been reopened at the behest of audit objection to make disallowance u/s 194I. However, there is no fresh tangible material before Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee to come to a conclusion that certain income escaped assessment. Secondly, the issue of expense ... impermissible unless there is independent satisfaction by Ld. AO that there was escapement of income. However, in the present case, there was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate entire proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

where the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that reassessment was unsustainable if based merely on a change of opinion in the absence of tangible material. 5. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, Yes Bank Ltd., was placed under a moratorium by the Reserve Bank of India

Jagdish Pirchand Jain, Kumbharwada Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Matru Mandir Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 745/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Hybrid Hearing) Jagdish Pirchand Jain Ito – 19(2)(1) Room No. 9, Todkari Sadan, 68, 1St Room No. 221, Matru Vs. Kumbhar Wada Near Goldeval, Mandir, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400000. Pan: Afipj 6569 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Tulsian (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 06.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsian (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)

assessment order is justified and valid as the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 is not based upon the piece of information and no any tangible material was brought on record. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by upholding the order of Ld. A.O. without appreciating the justification filed

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

where the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that reassessment was unsustainable if based merely on a change of opinion in the absence of tangible material. 5. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, Yes Bank Ltd., was placed under a moratorium by the Reserve Bank of India

M/S. Kishor D Naik (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

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

ITA 5587/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

material. Jurisdiction under Section 153C is not to be invoked on the basis of conjecture, surmise, or general reference, but must be rooted in tangible material that is clearly identified and linked to the other person. Furthermore, if satisfaction is recorded in respect of a particular assessment year

Madhu Goyal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.496/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Madhu Goyal D-36, Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Aeypg1038E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 68

term capital gain on sale of shares and claimed the same to be exempt u/s.10(38) of IT Act. iii. That in reasons no tangible material is narrated or described so as to form valid believe u/s.148 of IT Act. iv. That mere DIT information is mentioned in reasons recorded

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

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 ... Court is of the view that as far as the present appeals are concerned, the Revenue has been unable to demonstrate by some tangible material that there is an international transaction involving AMP expenses between WOIL and Whirlpool USA. In the absence of that first step, the question of determining

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

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 ... Court is of the view that as far as the present appeals are concerned, the Revenue has been unable to demonstrate by some tangible material that there is an international transaction involving AMP expenses between WOIL and Whirlpool USA. In the absence of that first step, the question of determining

Om Chaitanya Shree Bhanudasaya Stree Heet Vardhini Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT( Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1336/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pritam KulapkarFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12A

eared in Law and on facts, in rejecting the application in form 10AB U/S 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961,without considering tangible material submitted during proceeding under section 12AB &available as appellant had filed audited account and income Tax Return for last three years and in the past

Om Chaitanya Bhanudasaya Stree Heet Vardhini Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption) Mumbai., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1330/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pritam KulapkarFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12A

eared in Law and on facts, in rejecting the application in form 10AB U/S 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961,without considering tangible material submitted during proceeding under section 12AB &available as appellant had filed audited account and income Tax Return for last three years and in the past

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

limitation in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Re (b): Re-assessment initiated on mere 'change of opinion' no fresh tangible material 41. It may be pointed out that though the powers under section 147/148 are wide, the same are not unfettered or plenary, insofar ... similar observations, it itself indicates that reassessment proceedings are initiated on reappraisal of exiting facts and not on the basis of any new tangible material, which is not permissible in law: Atma Ram properties Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del.) Satnam Overseas v. ACIT

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

limitation in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Re (b): Re-assessment initiated on mere 'change of opinion' no fresh tangible material 41. It may be pointed out that though the powers under section 147/148 are wide, the same are not unfettered or plenary, insofar ... similar observations, it itself indicates that reassessment proceedings are initiated on reappraisal of exiting facts and not on the basis of any new tangible material, which is not permissible in law: Atma Ram properties Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT: [2012] 343 ITR 141 (Del.) Satnam Overseas v. ACIT

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cicle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)

JCIT instead of Id PCCIT. It was also submitted that reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on the basis of suspicion without having any tangible material having live link to form a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The assessee submitted that notice

M/S. Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1771/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

framed after scrutiny. The Assessing Officer would have considerable latitude in issuing notice for reopening if it is found that he had tangible material to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, it would not be appropriate on our part to strike down the notice

Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1), Moradabad vs. Zakira Khan, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Zakira Khan, Ward-2(1), Civil Linies, Moradabad Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aitpk1754A

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151(1)

JCIT instead of ld PCCIT. It was also submitted that reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on the basis of suspicion without having any tangible material having live link to form a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The assessee submitted that notice