← All Phrases

“fresh tangible material”

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

M/S Kamuthi Agricultural Products Co Operative Marketing Society Limited, Ramnad vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Ramanathapuram

ITA 414/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.414/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. M/S.Kamuthi Agricultural Producers The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Ward-1 (1), 5/206, Thiruchuli Road, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram. Ramanathapuram District-623 603. [Pan: Aaaaa 0334 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

upheld the re- opening of assessment on the ground that the AO has re-opened the assessment on the basis of fresh tangible materials which suggest escapement and thus, the question of change of opinion does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A) had also upheld disallowance of proportionate deduction claimed u/s.80P ... opinion on any issue in the original assessment proceedings and re-open the assessment on the very same issue in absence of fresh tangible materials. In this case, since the AO does not express any opinion on the issue of deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act, the question of change

Saravana Stores, Chennai vs. ACIT, C.C-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 488/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

further failed to appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and in the absence of any fresh tangible material pointing to failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts, ought to have applied the settled law that 'change of opinion' and also

ACIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Centwin Estates and Industries P Ltd, Chennai

In the result revenue’s appeal stand dismissed which makes assessee’s cross-objections academic in nature

ITA 29/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

assailed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of change of opinion. The Ld. AR also submitted that in the absence of fresh tangible material, the assessment could not be reopened. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in M/s Sabari Foundations Private Ltd. V/s ITO (ITA No.2744/Chny/2017

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

reasons, Ld. AO did no indicate that any income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and Ld. AO did not draw reference to any fresh tangible material based on which belief was formed. The assessee had made full and true disclosure of all facts during the scrutiny assessment proceedings and therefore ... failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. 5.2 Another argument was that there was no fresh tangible material to reopen the case. The assessee also averred that commission paid as a percentage of turnover was a part of remuneration the Chairman

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 68

reassessment on the ground that validity of the reassessment on the ground that assessment has assessment has reopened without any new or fresh tangible material and based reopened without any new or fresh tangible material and based reopened without any new or fresh tangible material and based merely ... change of the opinion and submitted that reopening is nothing but change of the opinion and same is done without any new or fresh tangible material. The same is done without any new or fresh tangible material. The same is done without any new or fresh tangible material

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

confirming the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the re-opening of assessment is without any fresh tangible materials and on change of opinion with same set of facts and materials which cannot be done under the law. The Ld.AR for the assessee ... expenditure reported by the assessee for the relevant assessment year to form reasonable belief of escapement of income without there being any fresh tangible material to suggest escapement of income. Therefore, he submitted that in absence of fresh tangible material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

confirming the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the re-opening of assessment is without any fresh tangible materials and on change of opinion with same set of facts and materials which cannot be done under the law. The Ld.AR for the assessee ... expenditure reported by the assessee for the relevant assessment year to form reasonable belief of escapement of income without there being any fresh tangible material to suggest escapement of income. Therefore, he submitted that in absence of fresh tangible material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

confirming the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the re-opening of assessment is without any fresh tangible materials and on change of opinion with same set of facts and materials which cannot be done under the law. The Ld.AR for the assessee ... expenditure reported by the assessee for the relevant assessment year to form reasonable belief of escapement of income without there being any fresh tangible material to suggest escapement of income. Therefore, he submitted that in absence of fresh tangible material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

confirming the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the re-opening of assessment is without any fresh tangible materials and on change of opinion with same set of facts and materials which cannot be done under the law. The Ld.AR for the assessee ... expenditure reported by the assessee for the relevant assessment year to form reasonable belief of escapement of income without there being any fresh tangible material to suggest escapement of income. Therefore, he submitted that in absence of fresh tangible material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable

Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 427/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

escapement of income may come from the record of the assessee also and it is not always necessary that there should be any fresh tangible material for forming belief of escapement of income. The Ld D.R further relied upon the decision rendered by Ld DRP on this issue

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

case for AO to come processed u/s 143(1), it is not necessary in such a case for AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form 'reasons to believe' that across some fresh tangible material to form

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid ... that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years, no material has been brought on record to show failure on part

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid ... that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years, no material has been brought on record to show failure on part

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid ... that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years, no material has been brought on record to show failure on part

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

assessment proceedings. In our view re- assessment proceedings have been initiated on account of mere change in opinion in absence of any fresh tangible material having live link with income escaping assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings are invalid having been initiated in violation of the provisions