Which cases are most cited on fresh tangible material?

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) — 1,673 citing judgments; CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) — 439 citing judgments; CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. (354 ITR 536) — 366 citing judgments; CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (325 ITR 285) — 243 citing judgments; CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485) — 231 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss fresh tangible material?

BharatTax indexes 398 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss fresh tangible material (Section 147).

← All Phrases

“fresh tangible material”

Q: What is the leading case on fresh tangible material?

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) is the decision most relied on for fresh tangible material, cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147398 judgments

The decision most relied on for fresh tangible material is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fresh 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.

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.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

348 ITR 485 · 2012 · High Court

231

citing judgments

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.

92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court

194

citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

324 ITR 154 · 2010 · High Court

179

citing judgments

Reasons recorded under Section 148 for reopening an assessment are jurisdictional facts that form the sole basis for assuming power and cannot be changed, supplemented, or corrected later. Such reasons must be based on fresh tangible material indicating income escapement.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

308 ITR 195 · 2009 · High Court

175

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment when all material facts were already before the AO during the original assessment, even if the AO failed to apply their mind at that time. Such an action constitutes an impermissible review of a concluded assessment rather than a reassessment based on fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing fresh tangible material

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

assessment by holding that the arguments of the appellant that reopening of assessment is based on “change of opinion” without there being any fresh tangible material is incorrect and misconceived. Further, the argument of the assessee that it has disclosed necessary facts in relation to assessment is also devoid ... under section 147 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that assessment has been reopened on “change of opinion” without there being any fresh tangible material which is evident from relevant reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, where the A.O. has referred to the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Yamunanagar vs. M/S the Ved Parkash Mukand Lal, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

which were duly been responded to by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material on record to form belief of escapement of income. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.5, observed that the assessee-trust had failed

DCIT vs. M/S the Ved Parkash Mukand Lal, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Educational Society, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Educational Society, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ITO 19 1 5 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Johratussharaf Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9040/MUM/2025[AMRPS6217J]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2017-18 Ito – 19(1)(5) Vs. Johratussharf Syedna 502, Piramal Chembers Mufaddal Saifuddin Lalbaug, Mumbai – Saifee Mahal, Ag Bell 400012. Marg, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Amrps6217J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order merely holding that there is no fresh tangible material to reopen the assessment, without appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) in its order for A.Y. 2018-19 in assessee ... judicial precedents relied upon, held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated by jurisdictional defects as the notice under section 148 was issued without fresh tangible material, without proper approval of the competent authority under section 151, and without a valid Document Identification Number (DIN). The CIT(A) further held that

Bhavani Ceramics Pvt Ltd, Mehsana vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Praveen Agarwal was recorded on 27- 01-2014 i.e. prior to the completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) and thus there was no fresh tangible material with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the income. The ld. A.R. relied

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

disallowance/additions in respect of the said issues in the original assessment order completed u/s.143(3) dated 16.02.2015. Accordingly, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, and in doing so would effectively tantamount to a review

DCIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7561/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

independent post-search evidence received from the Directorate of Investigation after the search in the Pravin Kumar Jain group on 01.10.2013, constituting fresh tangible material for this assessment year. 3. The Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.2,63,243/- (comprising

Ravisum Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8 (11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1616/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarravisun Creative Promotions Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Formerly Known As Ravisun Agro 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Investments Pvt. Ltd. New Marine Lines, Vs. 305, Surat Sadan, Surat Street, Churchgate, Masjit Bunder, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400049 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr 9224M Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 43B

propose any disallowance. 9. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment reproduced elsewhere in the order is completely silent on the fresh tangible material available with the Assessing Officer post completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which could have necessitated reopening of assessment

Deeya Agrotech Private Limited, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 492/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act with intend to 6 review the assessment order already passed in absence of any fresh tangible material in his possession having live link in connection with income escaped assessment. The same requires to be deleted in full. 7. That

Jethabhai Gokulbhai Gol, Banaskatha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Palanpur, Banaskantha

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2668/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

made under section 69 of the Act. As regards the ground relating to reopening of assessment, the assessee contended that there was no fresh tangible material, that the reassessment was based merely on suspicion and amounted to a change of opinion, and that the capital introduced in the partnership firm

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

section 147. 36. The Department contended that information was received from the Investigation Wing after completion of original assessment and therefore constituted fresh tangible material. Undoubtedly, information from an external source may constitute tangible material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur

Avula Sudarsanam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3552/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3552/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Avula Sudarsanam, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 1A, Flat No. S2, Amr Nalloli, Income Tax, Officers Colony, West Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. Chennai. [Pan:Etjps9434J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca Submits That There Was No Compliance By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Exparte Without

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), is misplaced. She submits that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment based on fresh tangible material obtained during survey under section 133A of the Act on 10 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 25.02.2019, wherein, Shri V. Rajendran, Chairman of the assessee Trust stated

Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore, Kalwan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 2274/PUN/2025[2011 - 12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 68

basis of same-material which was available with the A.O. in the course of scrutiny asst. proceedings, without receipt of any fresh tangible material after completion of the asst. proceedings u/s 143(3), is unsustainable in law and hence, the reasst. order u/s 147 may be declared as null

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Hindustan Construction Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Limited Circle 14(1)(1), Hincon House Lbs Marg, Mumbai Vs. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 (Pan: Aaach0968B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Trivedi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case of the assessee falls within this requirement. According to the assessee, it is a case of change of opinion with no new fresh tangible material brought on record for invoking reopening proceedings which is admittedly beyond period of four years from the end of the year under consideration ... material which forms the basis for the ld. Assessing Officer to arrive at a reason to believe which is a new, fresh tangible material surfacing out after the completion of regular assessment leading to formation of such a belief. What has been referred by the ld. Assessing Officer

Radhakishan, Khategaon, Dewas vs. ITO-2, Dewas

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 678/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246A

inability to present evidence at the relevant time. 3.That the reopening of assessment under section 148 was bad in law and devoid of fresh tangible material; the additions made are arbitrary, excessive, and lack proper justification. 4.That the Appellant has now gathered the relevant documents and evidence, which could

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

failing to quash the reopening. 2.3. The AO having reopened the assessment on the basis of material already on record, without any fresh tangible material, amounts to mere change of opinion, the CIT(A) ought to have quashed the same as illegal. 2.4. The AO having conducted the reassessment proceedings