“fresh tangible material”

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

pertinent to note that reassessment proceedings are not in the nature of review and reopening is permissible only where any new or fresh tangible material comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Reopening just on the basis of re-appreciation of already available material on record, without any other

Ashish Girish Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

present case the Assessing Officer had formed the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the basis of fresh tangible material being information/material received from the Investigation Wing. Since the reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment

Jap Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjap Overseas Private Vs. Ito Ward, 10(2)(1) Limited Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhawan, B-102, Twinkle Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Apartments, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1573C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Further in doing so, he drew adverse inference based on incorrect assumption of facts and erred in holding that the ITO was having fresh tangible material for re-opening of the assessment. 2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing Gr.No. 2 raised before him challenging the action

Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on merits

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito Ward-32(2)(1) Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt Kautilya Bhavan, I-1434, Govardhan Nagar Bandra Kurla Bldg. No. 4, Opp. Poinsur Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Gymkhana, Kandivali Mumbai-400 051 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aiypb4411G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2026

reopening, the CIT(A) held that the original return was processed under section 143(1) and the Assessing Officer was in possession of fresh tangible material received from the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) observed that at the stage of reopening, the Assessing Officer was only required to form

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

assessee. 4.5 Before the AO, it was submitted that mere furnishing affidavit before the ITSC, did not and could not be considered as fresh tangible material so as to reopen the case. With respect to this, it is was observed that the AO that Sanjay Chhabria for the first time

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA No.300&583/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI MS. PADMAVATHY

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), Mumbai

reason also the contention raised by the Assessee cannot be accepted. We are also of the view that the Assessing Officer had sufficient fresh tangible material to form a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment. The report of the Investigation Wing, coupled with the material gathered ... present case the Assessing Officer had formed the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the basis of fresh tangible material. It is admitted position that the Assessee had claimed long term capital gains exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act in respect of sale

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

assessee, quantifying the alleged fictitious profit and identifying the mechanism of client code modification. Such information, in our considered view, constituted fresh tangible material which was not available before the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment proceedings. 34. The contention of the assessee that full and true ... ledger accounts furnished by the assessee. The subsequent receipt of investigation material, including details of CCM and the statement of the broker, constituted fresh tangible material, forming a live and proximate link with the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 46. The reliance placed by the assessee