“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

J vs. Exports, Maduraivs.DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2059/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14 Jvs Export, Deputy Commissioner Of No.32, Sarojini Street, Vs. Income Tax, Chinna Chokkikulam, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan:Aabfj2836N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Vide Order Dated 21.05.2025. 2. The Preliminary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment In The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Had Filed Its

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 43(5)Section 73(1)

only on perusal of the profit and loss account which is already placed on record.This goes to prove that there is absolutely no fresh tangible material that had come into the possession of the learned AO post the completion of original scrutiny assessment under section ... warranting him to reopen the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act.In the absence of fresh tangible material, the formation of belief vanishes, as it would only be reappraisal of the already available materials on record. Admittedly, the profit and loss account was filed by the assessee

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4344/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri & Hitesh Shashikantjhaveri Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A/304, Alanknanda Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1) Building, 51St Tps Road, C41-43, G Block Bkc, Near Veer Sawarkar Garden, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Borivali (West), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Adepj1181A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without any fresh tangible material and merely on the basis of a general report from the Directorate of Investigation, which does not establish any live link or nexus with

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

after due verification, had accepted the genuineness of the payment. The reopening, it was urged, was a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. In support, the assessee furnished a comprehensive set of documents demonstrating the legality and genuineness of the transaction. The relevant documents included- (i) Copy

Huawei International Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Intl. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of 7

ITA 2648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh & Sa 298/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Huawei International Pte. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 51, Change Business Park, Circle-2(1)(1), Central-2, #07-08, The International Signature, Singapore Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch3694N Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv Shri Yash Nagar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. s. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

reported in 146 taxmann.com 65(SC) wherein it was held that it was not necessary for the assessing officer to come across any fresh tangible material to form a belief that income by way of professional services charged had escaped assessment for the purpose of reopening, in the case where

Acharya Balkrishna, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

appreciate the fact that the proceedings initiated under section 148A(b)/(d) of the Act were without application of mind, with no fresh tangible material and were issued at the behest of superior authority, further, there were many factual and legal inaccuracies in the reasons recorded which also shows total

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

fatal to the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order ... notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible material as they were always part of the assessment records. This fact is corroborated by the detailed submission made by the assessee vide its letter dated 05.03.2015. Thus, what ld. Assessing Officer has resorted

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6574/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

apply to a lease hold transaction. 8.2. From the perusal of the records, it is discernible that there is no fresh tangible material brought on record by the ld. Assessing Officer to justify reopening of the assessment. To us, it appears that ld. Assessing Officer by the impugned reopening proceedings ... truly all material facts necessary for assessment and reasons for reopening were itself based on records provided by assessee, thus, there was no fresh tangible material for reopening assessment, impugned reopening notice issued after four years was to be set aside.” 8.7. Considering the facts of the case and observations

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

come on the record of the A.O, which reveals that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, then based on such fresh “tangible material” he remains well within his jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment for the said year and the said action on his part cannot be brought

ACIT Central Circle 7 4, Mumbai vs. Zytex Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri, Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50(2)Section 50B

Learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid, despite the discovery of fresh tangible material Zytex Biotech Private Ltd. during the survey under Section 133A, which demonstrated that the assessee had misclassified the transaction as a slump sale instead ... justified in concluding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a "change of opinion," despite the fact that fresh tangible material emerged after the original assessment under Section 143(3), specifically from the survey action under Section 133A, thereby validating the reopening as per the provisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Velachery

ITA 632/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

because there is no statutory bar to reopen merely because 144A directions were issued earlier. However, it can be undertaken only if fresh tangible material comes to light later. In the case under consideration, the original assessment order u/s.143(3) was passed based on the direction u/s.144A, in which ... been the foundation on which AO would have formed his belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the absence of fresh tangible material, the AO couldn't have resorted the reopening as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A