← 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

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellate D Cit(A) Order Details E Revenue F 1

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

Kelvinator of India Limited that the "reason to believe" on which a reassessment can be validly ordered should necessarily be based on "tangible material” which an assessing officer comes by after the assessment. Page - 9 - of 70 :- 10 -: ITA No.86 & 13 others /Chny/2018 2.8 The facts of the present case ... case of "review of the assessment order” and the same cannot be approved. We have also noted that there is no fresh and tangible material which has been brought on record by the Ld. AO to justify his action. We have also noted that, from the reasons recorded

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

could not give the AO prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment. The AO is required to form prima facie opinion based on tangible material which provides the nexus or the link having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The AO was also required to examine whether ... reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The power is not akin to a review. The existence of tangible material is 17 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. necessary to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) This contention

Pallav, Jamnagar vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Jamnagar

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

ITA 473/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal & Shri Brijesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

hand, ld. DR for the Revenue, argued that reasons for reopening of assessment have been recorded by the assessing officer, with help of the tangible material. The tangible material in the assessee`s case is the bank statement, wherein the assessee has deposited lot of money, in bank account

M/S Shah Traders, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 5564/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Shah Traders, Dw-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabfs6536J V/S Dcit, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri Amit JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai constitutes new and tangible material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. In ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd, reported

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Ctprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

original reassessment proceedings itself. The CIT(A) also allowed the contentions of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings has been initiated without any new tangible material that is brought on record. However, the CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee that the reopening is based on mere ... erred in holding that, the AO was not justified to re-open the assessment when the AO was not in possession of any new tangible material, when in fact the AO has recorded the detailed reasons for reopening based on which the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee

DCIT It 332 Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Cyprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

original reassessment proceedings itself. The CIT(A) also allowed the contentions of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings has been initiated without any new tangible material that is brought on record. However, the CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee that the reopening is based on mere ... erred in holding that, the AO was not justified to re-open the assessment when the AO was not in possession of any new tangible material, when in fact the AO has recorded the detailed reasons for reopening based on which the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee

Manik Pal, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1968/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

information which suggests that assessee income had escaped assessment. The initiation of reopening proceedings is arbitrary, unlawful, without application of mind, devoid of any tangible materials and liable to be quashed. (2) That the reopening proceeding has been initiated by passing order u/s 148A(d) arbitrarily without finding any escapement ... illegal and bad in law. (5) That under the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld AO initiated the re- opening proceeding without bringing any tangible material on record which could provide live nexus between information and escapement of income, without any application of mind. The re-opening is therefore vague

Nandi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer Appeal, Vijayapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 447/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri. Chetan V Chougale & Sri Praveen P Ghali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT - DR
Section 115JSection 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

primary fact disclosed. We are also of the considered opinion that the reasons for reopening itself is based on assumptions and presumptions without any tangible materials to show that assessee has escaped assessment. The assessing officer in our view has failed to substantiate with evidence that the assessee himself deposited

Meenakshi Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(6), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

undersigned’s attention to pages 17 and 18 of the paper-book that the Assessing Officer herein had strictly gone by the corresponding tangible material whilst setting into motion the section 148/147 proceedings. He next takes the undersigned to the prescribed authority’s approval at pages 19 to 20 indicating

Cyient Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 913/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ankit Jain Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Agwpa4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)Section 292CSection 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit/NaFAC erred by making the additions without supplying the relevant documents or tangible material to the appellant and without obtaining the bank account statement(s) relied on which the case was reopened by the JAO, as such, said proceedings

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

proceedings without appreciating the fact that 2.1 Andrei The reassessment was made after expiry of four years without re-course to any fresh and tangible material on record and the re-assessment was drawn on mere change of opinion. 2.2 That the impugned order disposing the objections against the "reasons

Ramad Ventures Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 408/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.408/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Ramad Ventures Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम Old No.23, New No.18, Corporate Circle-5(1) Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-7531-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

same material which was available before Ld. AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings. Nothing has been shown to us that some new tangible material came to the possession of Ld. AO which would justify reopening beyond 4 years. In such a case, the reassessment proceedings become review ... before Ld. AO during the course of original assessment proceedings. The reasons do not indicate any event as to the receipt of any fresh tangible material coming to the possession of Ld. AO subsequent to culmination of original assessment proceedings. The formation of belief is on the same

S.P. Singla Construction Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

facts and discussion it is found that the AO has formed reason to believe for escapement of income with application of mind, based upon tangible material and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly no merit is found in such grounds of appeal no 3 and 4 taken

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

change of opinion'; (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law: (d) Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment ... jurisdiction Re: (c) Reassessment proceedings initiated without any valid and legally sustainable "reasons to believe" of income having "escaped assessment", without any fresh tangible material and without independent application of mind, is illegal and bad in law It is further respectfully submitted that in order to initiate proceedings under section

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 936/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sanguine Media Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax - 3, Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. Pan: Aaecs 2217C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

records to establish it had not received any loan amount from Shri Jignesh Shah, then the burden shifts to the Revenue to bring some tangible material to show that assessee had actually received the amount from Shri Jignesh Shah as accommodation entries. On identical facts (in a case of loan/advance ... been placed on record before the AO as well as before the PCIT, the AO or PCIT ought to have brought on record some tangible material to show that assessee company had actually received the amount from Shri Jignesh Shah. In other words, the assessee cannot be expected to prove

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

live link with the material coming to the notice of the AO and the formation of his belief regarding escaped income. There must be tangible material on record for the formation of opinion, which is a prerequisite for initiation of action u/s 147. There should be facts before

Janet Christine Depenning, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1319/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A LMFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(viii)

assessee received from foreign associates, copies of the payment instructions etc. On scrutiny of the documents furnished it however appeared that there was no tangible material available in these documents which substantiated the Ld. AR’s contention that the payments which the assessee made to the foreign associates

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 192/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income on 25.01.2015 had expired, the AO was not supposed to revisit the facts of the case and change his opinion. No tangible material had come to the possession of the AO to form the belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. As observed above ... assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 191/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income on 25.01.2015 had expired, the AO was not supposed to revisit the facts of the case and change his opinion. No tangible material had come to the possession of the AO to form the belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. As observed above ... assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening