← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC), I hold that 1. the jurisdictional foundation under section 147 collapses for want of tangible material and non-application of mind, 2. natural-justice breaches vitiate the assessment, and 3. even on merits the department has adduced no cogent evidence to dislodge the exchange ... Officer and the Assessing Officer did not supply the trade date and the reopening was done without any independent application of mind, without any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that the reasons recorded must have live link between the reasons and the fact of escapement of income and that

Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25.1, Kautilya Bhuvan

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

ITA 5155/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethvijay Lalitchandra Parekh Vs. Assistant Commissioner Vastu Subh A Wing Ground Of Income Tax 25.1 Floor Rajamata Jijabai Road Kautilya Bhuvan Bkc Pump House Andheri East, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aiupp3044K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

much as (i) Reason recorded by Assessing Officer does not depict escapement of income by the appellant. (ii) There is no tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer. (iii) Notice has been issued on the direction of DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai 4. On the facts

Labh Combines Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Kolkata and Labh Combines Pvt. Ltd. without any application of mind by the AO and without there being any tangible material showing live link with escapement of income. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income ... formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections to the reopening are considered

Surana Bros Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2143/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind and without making any enquiry into information received from the AO and thus there was no tangible material to reopen the case. 4. The facts in brief are that the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

with multifold propositions under reliance to host of judgments, detailed as under: “Proposition1-1 : For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of new tangible material, reassessment is bad-in-law CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

with multifold propositions under reliance to host of judgments, detailed as under: “Proposition1-1 : For reassessment beyond four years, in the absence of new tangible material, reassessment is bad-in-law CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT

Sagar Dwellings P Ltd, Near Sun Temple Gwalior vs. ACIT, Faceless

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ignored on the consideration of suspicion and surmises. 6. BECAUSE, the authorities below have erred in making and confirming the addition without confronting any tangible material, contrary evidence and without allowing cross examination, the addition of Rs. 1,03,89,106/- under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 rws 144B

Aaditya Construction, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer-I Korba, Korba

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 536/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 536/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aaditya Construction, Vs Income Tax Officer- 1, Korba 56, Indira Complex, Transport Nagar, Mahanadi Extension Complex, Korba-495001, C.G. Ghantaghar, Niharika Road, Kashi Nagar, Korba-495677, C.G. Pan: Aapfa5390N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44A

have some defects and some expenses unverifiable. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are dismissed. 8. The assessee has failed to bring any tangible material on the record to contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), which in our considered opinion has fairly applied the NP rate

Jaydev Mahadev Arya, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Jaydev Mahadev Arya, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1271/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur vs. Vimal Jaydev Arya, Latur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2156/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Adarsh Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

reasons recorded were incorrect and based on mere "information", and (c) the reopening was based on change of opinion and without any tangible material. 8. Stamp Duty Value Cannot Be Adopted when Property is Stock-in- Trade. Without prejudice, the learned authorities failed to appreciate that the property sold represented

Raj Sharadkumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3290/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyanka Jain, Shri Pankaj Soni & Shri Rohan MittalFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

supported by demat records and banking channels, and the primary evidences remain uncontroverted, the burden shifts upon the revenue to disprove the same with tangible material. In the present case, such burden has not been discharged. The judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. AR, including decisions of the Coordinate

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

authority was convinced that the assessee’s case was fit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, for reopening without having tangible material on hand and merely by relying on third party information, hence, it is completely non-application of mind on the part of the specified ... merely stated that he is satisfied with the reasons recorded and is convinced that the case is fit for the reopening without having tangible material on hand and merely by relying on reasons recorded by assessing officer. We note that the provisions of section

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoices / bills which were produced by the assessee. Thus, this is not the case where the Assessing Officer outrightly for want of a tangible material rejected the books of accounts and or the documents as submitted by the assessee in supporting such accounts, when it related to the alleged bogus

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoices / bills which were produced by the assessee. Thus, this is not the case where the Assessing Officer outrightly for want of a tangible material rejected the books of accounts and or the documents as submitted by the assessee in supporting such accounts, when it related to the alleged bogus

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoices / bills which were produced by the assessee. Thus, this is not the case where the Assessing Officer outrightly for want of a tangible material rejected the books of accounts and or the documents as submitted by the assessee in supporting such accounts, when it related to the alleged bogus

Chetan Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7320/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

action of Ld. AO in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 merely on the basis of his own surmises, conjectures and assumptions without any tangible material, independent enquiry or application of mind to establish that income had escaped assessment, rendering the reopening bad in law and in contrast

M/S Bhagyesh A. Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5865/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv, & Akshay Pawar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

legally sound decision that correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the applicable legal principles. The reassessment was validly initiated based on specific, tangible material, and the substantive addition was justified given the overwhelming evidence against the genuineness of the purchases from Khushi Gems Pvt. Ltd., a proven accommodation

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

ITA 4913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Kumar Meena, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)

holding reopening u/s. 147 of the Act not valid and the quashing impugned assessment order failing to consider that revenue audit objections are tangible material. 3. The appellant craves the leaves to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeals of appeal as above.” Grounds raised ... allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there was no new tangible material available with the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment and the same was only on the basis of the return of income, tax audit