← 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

M. Velusamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2587/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

limit beyond four years, particularly beyond four years, particularly in the absence of any new or tangible in the absence of any new or tangible material (apart from the existing survey material) (apart from the existing survey material) being brought on being brought on record. In our considered view therefore ... extended time limit in the absence of permitted to avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny assessment

M. Velusamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2586/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

limit beyond four years, particularly beyond four years, particularly in the absence of any new or tangible in the absence of any new or tangible material (apart from the existing survey material) (apart from the existing survey material) being brought on being brought on record. In our considered view therefore ... extended time limit in the absence of permitted to avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny assessment

S. Aravind, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2584/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

limit beyond four years, particularly beyond four years, particularly in the absence of any new or tangible in the absence of any new or tangible material (apart from the existing survey material) (apart from the existing survey material) being brought on being brought on record. In our considered view therefore ... extended time limit in the absence of permitted to avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny any new or tangible material, when the time for scrutiny assessment

Swati Energy & Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234D

several decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court pointing out that the audit objection by the revenue audit party constitutes information on tangible material that justifies reopening. 14.1. We are of the considered view that such decisions apply when an audit party points out facts not in the knowledge

Dharamvir Singh, Village Thamber vs. ITO Ward 1, Ambala

In the result, the impugned order and the proceedings are unsustainable in law

ITA 66/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

learned counsel for the revenue cannot be placed upon the expression 'material available on record' to include possibility of collection of any relevant or tangible material for opening of proceedings under section 148A of the Act. 23. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance upon the decision

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

order passed by Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course ... this stage, test to be applied is only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether Assessing Officer had tangible material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

order passed by Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course ... this stage, test to be applied is only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether Assessing Officer had tangible material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

order passed by Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course ... this stage, test to be applied is only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether Assessing Officer had tangible material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

order passed by Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course ... this stage, test to be applied is only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether Assessing Officer had tangible material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

order passed by Ld. AO under section 147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course ... this stage, test to be applied is only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether Assessing Officer had tangible material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Deputy Commissioner Limited Vs. Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) [Pan: Aaacd7999Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Ar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/04/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

assessee and also taking note of provisions of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act held that there is a fresh tangible material in the form of information received from ADIT (I&CI), Hyderabad that during the calendar year, the assessee company has received interest income of Rs.9 ... said information has been received after completion of original assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee which partakes the nature of fresh tangible material, which is sufficient to form basis for escapement of income and for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, rejected the contention

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

given a go-bye. It was observed that. "Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the AO has power to reopen, provided that there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live-link with the formation of the belief ... previously accepted under s. 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny, the AO would have power to reopen the assessment, provided he had some tangible material on the basis of which he could form a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 9. The Assessing Officer

Tikota Cooperative Credit Society Niyamit, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1853/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

made before the lower authorities and learned Counsel submitted that the reopening made by the AO has not been justified and he had no tangible material for exercising power under section 144 of the Act and she also submitted that the basic ingredients for reopening of the case is absent

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4058/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material. 20. Coming to the second part, this tells us what the AO did with the information so received. He says: "The information so received ... made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Developers and Realtors, Mumbai

ITA 3041/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material. 20. Coming to the second part, this tells us what the AO did with the information so received. He says: "The information so received ... made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material

DCIT - CC -7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 3040/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material. 20. Coming to the second part, this tells us what the AO did with the information so received. He says: "The information so received ... made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Manidhara Realty LLP, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 327/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer Manidhara Realty Llp बनाम/ Ward-2(3)(1), Surat Room 501, International Business Centre, Vs. No.614, Aayakar Bhawan, Dumas Road, Piplod, Surat-395 0017 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcfm 2991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm when the partners’ sources of funds are explained. The Revenue has failed to demonstrate any tangible material to contradict the evidentiary value of the documents submitted. The ratio of the decisions in case of Pankaj Dyestuff ITA No.327/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Manidhara Realty

Mascot Fastners Private Limited, Uttarakhand vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 46/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Vs. National Faceless Ltd, Assessment Centre, Plot No. B-155, Eldeco, Sidcul, Delhi Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, 262 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm4504H Assessee By : Shri Atul Ninawat, Partner Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, PartnerFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80I

sought to reopen the assessment only on perusal of the assessment records. This itself goes to prove that there was absolutely no tangible material available with the Learned AO which would enable him to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The Learned AO had sought ... reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, we have no hesitation to conclude that- (a) there was no tangible material available with the Learned AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment ; M/s. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Ltd (b) there

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

appreciating that the alleged reasons to believe recorded are merely in the nature of pretence and vague as no fresh tangible material surfaced after completion of original assessment proceedings. 1.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was merely ... financial statements alongwith the relevant notes were available with the AO when the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter no fresh and tangible material is referred in the reasons recorded for issue of notice for reassessment of the completed proceedings. 20. From the perusal of the reasons recorded

Malkiat Agro Industries 01, Cantt Road, Nabha 147201, Punjab vs. Lovish Shelley the DCIT Circle Mandigobind Garh Jao Income Tax Officer Nabha, Punjab

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri K.K. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

quashed. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the notice u/s 148 having 5. been issued beyond four years without there being any tangible material on record, deserves to be quashed, irrespective of the fact, whether the assessment have been framed within four years or beyond four years