← 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

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

dated 31.01.2014, he submitted that the issue of loans has already been scrutinized during the original assessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the re-assessment proceedings initiated are merely based on change of opinion. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied ... assessment proceedings being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. Even otherwise also, since the re- assessment proceedings initiated without any tangible material and merely on the basis of report of the Investigation wing, Kolkata, therefore, the same is also not in accordance with

Meena Hasmukh Savla, Matunga Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2910/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

made solely on the basis of suspicion. 4.3 The provisions of section 69C of the Act get triggered only when any evidence or tangible material is available on record to prove that the assessee is found to have incurred any expenditure and the same not recorded in their books

Chandan Raltors P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 761/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69A

escapement of income as the transaction was on a capital account. Except for a mere doubt of round tripping transaction, there was no tangible material. The Ld.DR further submitted that a foreign company is not required to file return of income unless there is a PE. He submitted that

Aacharya Shri Rushirajbaba Pratisthan, Nagpur vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 592/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Further, the supporting evidence of the activities in the form bills and photographs are also not submitted by you. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of details and proof of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the activities are charitable

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

held that once an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3), the same cannot be reopened within four years unless there is tangible material to establish escapement of income. The Court categorically ruled that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is not valid. As the present case ... falls within four years of the original assessment and no tangible material has been brought to justify the reopening, the action under Section 147 is liable to be quashed. - The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings on the grounds of "inadequate consideration" as well as S.69 of the Act related

Magestic Premises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-2, Thane

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

ITA 1540/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Pakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

present case, we are of the considered view that the information received from the DCIT, Central Circle- 1(2), Ahmedabad, constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. As a result, we find no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings initiated

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

supported by the audited balance-sheet, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no escape from the conclusion that no tangible material was available with the Assessing Authority so as to initiate the re-assessment proceedings against the petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions under section

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

Taxmann.com 185) vide decision dated 05/08/2016, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held as under: When the Assessing Officer is armed with the tangible material in the form of specific information received by the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is thoroughly justified in issuing a notice for reassessment. It is revealed ... that income of the assessee has escaped assessment and, therefore, once the reasonable belief is formulated by the DCIT on the basis of cogent tangible material, the DCIT is not expected to conclude at this stage the issue finally or to ascertain the fact by evidence or conclusion. Function

Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Shade No. 20, Shree Shhakti Income-Tax-4, Estate & Workhouse, Piplaj Ahmedabad Pirana Road, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Ahmedabad-302405 [Pan : Aaica 3968 J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

elaborate the material on records or did not cross verify cannot be held prejudicial to interest in revenue. While Assessing officer received all tangible materials which was being asked during assessment and clearly looking through payment done by M/s Yug Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, it is seen that it was done

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

ADIT (Investigation), Kolkata, but there is no evidence as to the basis of such report. Therefore, in our considered view, unless there is fresh tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer which came to his possession subsequent to completion of the 20 original assessment, in our considered view ... reopen the assessment, but such power should be based on formation of a reasonable belief of escapement of income on the basis of fresh tangible material. In the present case, going by the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is undisputedly clear that the Assessing Officer has reopened

Sssp Consultant and Techno Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 719/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

main reason for reopening of assessment is against the facts available on record. It also shows that the assessing officer did not have any tangible material to support his observations and further he did not apply his mind on the information supplied by the survey officials by examining the record ... proceeded to reopen the assessment on the belief that the above said loans are mere accommodation entries only, but he did not have any tangible material to arrive at such a conclusion. 4.2. Accordingly, the Ld.AR contended that the basic ingredients required for reopening of assessment, i.e., formation of belief

Sssp Consultant and Techno Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 717/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

main reason for reopening of assessment is against the facts available on record. It also shows that the assessing officer did not have any tangible material to support his observations and further he did not apply his mind on the information supplied by the survey officials by examining the record ... proceeded to reopen the assessment on the belief that the above said loans are mere accommodation entries only, but he did not have any tangible material to arrive at such a conclusion. 4.2. Accordingly, the Ld.AR contended that the basic ingredients required for reopening of assessment, i.e., formation of belief

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha(PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

expenditure by inferring the existence of an international transaction based on bright line test if he has not been able to demonstrate with tangible material if there is an international transaction involving AMP expenditure between the assessee and its AE. It is further submitted that the SLP filed

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

expenditure by inferring the existence of an international transaction based on bright line test if he has not been able to demonstrate with tangible material if there is an international transaction involving AMP expenditure between the assessee and its AE. It is further submitted that the SLP filed

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

accepted the returned income. As per the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings, it is evident that no fresh and new tangible material was considered by the AO and only based on the material available on records satisfaction of escaped income was recorded. For this ld. A/R drew ... omission by way of reopening the assessment without any fresh material which is nothing but mere change of opinion. No new information and/ or tangible material was found and the formation of any opinion based on same facts which were then available with the AO at the time of original

Avuti Bhanuprasad, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 69/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Avuti Bhanuprasad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Mahabubnagar. Mahabubnagar. Pan : Bqspb5604A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

above, the AO has passed a detailed order outlining the reasons for his action. On the other hand, the appellant has not brought any tangible material or evidence on record which could have satisfactorily explained the nature and source of deposits in his bank account. The AO issued multiple notices

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

notice could not have been issued beyond 31.3.2018 as per Proviso to the unamended sec.147 of the Act in the absence of any fresh tangible material to reopen the assessment. 6. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the notice for reopening was issued to apply sec.50C ... part of assessee to disclose fully and :-8-: ITA. No:1849/Chny/2024 truly material facts and there is also no mention of any tangible material showing income escaping assessment, due to which notice u/s.148 was issued beyond the 4-year period. Therefore, as per Proviso to sec.147, there was clear lack

Destiny Star (India) Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT-Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6430/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj JaiswalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 7

case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming issuance of notice under section 148, even though there is no new tangible material for reopening. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the issue which is subject

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur vs. Shri Mukesh Champalal Malviya, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/NAG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147

appellant and made the additions in his hand. When the appellant had narrated the whole fact before the AO and AO was confronted with tangible material on record about the source of transaction and money, he should have made independent enquiry of the firms owned by Deven Malviya as well

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Thane, Mumbai

ITA 3316/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of Appellant only on account of change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. It was further submitted that there was no failure on the part of the Appellant ... validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2017, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 constituted sufficient tangible material for initiation reassessment proceedings. 8. In rejoinder the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant submitted that despite repeated requests copy of reasons recorded for reopening