“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

Late Vanaja Darumagari L/R Ram Mohan Rao Darumagari, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 466/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1) Pan:Agapd7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Akqpd6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Arun Lal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Husband & Wife Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Dated 10/01/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2008-09. The Issues

For Appellant: Shri Arun Lal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 69

under consideration, therefore, the information received by the Assessing Officer assessee from the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad is a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax on account of unexplained investment in the name of partnership firm M/s. Raja Rani Developers has escaped ... time. This fact was revealed from the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad and constitute a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of the land by the assessee

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

there is escapement of income. In fact, the remand report also shows that the Ld. AO was having incomplete information. Therefore, there was no tangible material in possession of the Ld. AO leading to the belief that income has escaped assessment. In this sense, the Ld. AO failed to establish ... which has escaped assessment rather it is pre requisite for issuing the notice u/s 148 that the AO on the basis of tangible material and information has legitimate reason to believe that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The belief must be based on a material which has direct

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147

made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore, now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment without any tangible material, based on the same information/material which was available before him during the regular assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is seeking to reopen ... case of M PALLONJI ENERPRISES P. LTD (supra) has discussed the issue of ‘change of opinion’and held that unless there is a new tangible material or a trigger to reopen the assessment then even within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, assessment cannot be reopened

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

acted independently after verification of record as is evident from the materials available on record. The reasons recorded by the A.O. clearly shows that tangible material was made the basis for formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The A.O. established

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45

escaped assessment. Satisfaction of the AO and reason to believe are sine qua non for reopening an assessment which has to based upon some tangible material which the AO relies upon and after making due inquiries, goes ahead to reopen. 13. We have gone through the judgment ... check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Parliament not only deleted

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

Act.It also, inter alia, contended that the assessment of AY 2013-14 has been reopened without bringing any fresh or tangible material on record by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the return of income filed by the assessee had been processed ... information coming to the notice of AO during the course of proceedings in the case of assessee himself in subsequent AY, will constitute fresh tangible material, on the foundation of which a reason to believe can be formed. The AO has aptly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 160/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

appellant in his revised ground of appeal, has challenged the reopening of the assessment, stating that the reason was recorded without having tangible material for escaped assessment of Rs.8,31,02,597/- merely on presumption and surmise only based on information received from ITO(lnv), Raipur. The appellant further claimed ... every rupee, which probably could have not been possible, if the information was unverified merely on the basis of presumption. There were the tangible materials in the form of information, was available with the AO, which was verified from the accessibility with the AO in due course, on the basis

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 159/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 158/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

Jagdish Parshad Jain, Panipat vs. DCIT Central Circle Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

jurisdiction. 3. That, no application of mind by the assessing officer while recording the alleged satisfaction and failed to establish the live nexus between tangible material and income escaped assessment, which is vague, incorrect and baseless, hence, the proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction

Murali Krishna Yenugula, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

assessee that the impugned issue cited by the AO in the ‘reasons recorded’ (supra) has already undergone scrutiny and there was no tangible material in the possession of the AO to re-open the assessment after four years from the relevant AY, without satisfaction of proviso to sec.147 ... that initiation of reassessment would have been permissible Mr. Murali Krishna Yenugula :: 7 :: only if the AO was having in his possession fresh and tangible material which came in his possession subsequent to passing of the order u/s.143(3) and its relation with formation of belief should have been spelt

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Pune

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

ITA 1182/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

object the re-opening. In the absence of any response received by the assessee, the Ld. AO passed the ex-parte order based on tangible material available on record u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act thereby making addition of Rs.15,38,40,655/- being

Shital Dhorda, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4625/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito – 22(3)(3) Shital Dhorda 408, Piramal Chambers 1002, 10Th Floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Vibgyor, S.V. Road, 400012. Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Ajvpd0456H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By Shir Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 04.07.2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’), For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

document or pendrive has been confronted to the Appellant. It is amply clear from the above that the Learned AO did not have any tangible material so as to form an opinion as regards "Reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning ... other "incriminating evidence" as claimed by the Learned AO In the light of the above, the Appellant humbly submits as under: - i. No fresh/ tangible material on record before the Learned Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment assessment. The Learned AO has merely relied on the forwarded information received from

Anish Garg, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

reasons so recorded. Mere fact that the assessee sold certain shares with certain value on the stock exchange cannot by itself be held as tangible material. Further, the AO has not just recorded a reason to believe rather recorded a conclusive finding that assessee is involved in manage trading ... settled legal proposition that for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147, the Assessing Officer has to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of tangible material that there is an escapement of income, the opinion formed may be subjective but the reasons recorded or the information available on record must

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 01-04-1989, Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided, there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a link with the formation of the belief ... debts, wrongly. The assessment was therefore re-opened under Section 147. This would stand testimony to the fact that the Assessing Officer has no tangible material evidence to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. Had there been any material evidence, which prompted the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings, he ought

Railroad Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2564/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Railroad Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O Metal Trim, Gala No.1, Tankiwala Income Tax Pcit, Mumbai-3 Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Indl. Estate, Steel Made Compound, Marol Vs. Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (E) , Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 059. Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaccr3484J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Satish R. Mody Respondent By : Shri. Tushar Mohite Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Tushar Mohite Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

ground that the ld. AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act on an unabated or concluded assessment without any tangible material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the proceeding before the ld. PCIT is a collateral proceeding were the validity of the reassessment order could ... made on the 20% of the total withdrawal of Rs. 5,85,10,996/-. 11. It is evident that there has been no new tangible material available for the ld. AO for reopening assessee’s case as even during the original assessment proceedings, the ld. AO was well within

Minal Shroff, Rs Puram Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward -2(3), Coimbatore

ITA 2424/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)

fulfilled. The Ld.AR submitted that initiation of reassessment would have been permissible only if the AO was having in his possession fresh and tangible material which came in his possession subsequent to passing of the order u/s 143(3) and its relation with formation of belief should have been spelt ... that an information from office of CCIT, the AO could not have resorted to reopening of the assessment. According to Ld.AR, there was no tangible material available with the AO which can be said to have been gathered by the CCIT, Coimbatore which could have led one to believe that

All India Chess Federatiion, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 30/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.28, 29 & 30/Chny/2023 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All India Chess Federation, The Income Tax Officer Hall No.70, Vs. (Exemptions), Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Ward-1, Chennai. Sydenhams Road, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaaaa 2155P]

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 11

upheld the reopening of the assessment. The main arguments of assessee has been that reopening was on borrowed satisfaction and there was no tangible material available with A.O. The assessee has argued that the Hon’ble ITAT in earlier years has held the activities for charitable purpose. We find that ... whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. In our view these are new and tangible material. The A.O therefore has reopened the assessment based on the new tangible material and We, therefore find no infirmity in the order

Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 405/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri P.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

submits as follows: 1. The reopening of assessment is with an intention to review the assessment order. The AO has not demonstrated what new tangible material came before the AO after passing the final assessment order. 2. There is change of opinion on the part of the AO without ... High Court in the case of (Hewlett-Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. ITA No.406/2007). We are of the opinion that there is no new/fresh tangible material in the possession of the AO on the basis of which AO could have reason to believe that the income chargeable