← 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

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

been issued on 26.03.2020 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There is no fresh tangible material available for reopening of the 13 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 assessment which is having a bearing on the escapement of income of the assessee ... corresponding cash and bank balances. The said information is nothing to do with individual assessment of the assessee. Therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material which suggest escapement of income, the formation of belief of escapement of income arrived at by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment

Shaukat Ali Vali Mohammed Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 31(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 3324/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2011-12 Shaukat Ali Vali Mohammed Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), Khan, Kautilya Bhavan, C-802, Pearl Horizon, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Bldg. No.3, Bandivali Hill Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. Pan : Aiepk8948B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashish Verma For Revenue : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ashish VermaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)

only on the basis of verification of record already existing and submitted during the course of original assessment proceedings, without bringing out any fresh tangible material. It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Assesseing Officer erred in issuing impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act when admittedly there is no fresh tangible material for formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5 ITA 163/Mum/2024 Hifzur Ansari 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred ... addition on account of reasons recorded in the order was not added while completing the assessment. Admittedly, there is no fresh tangible material on record for formation of belief. Considering this, the Ld.AR prayed for acceptance of additional grounds, now sought to be raised before us. 5. The Ld.DR argued

Ram Ratan Hooda, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

wrongly upheld the reassessment order under Sections 147/144/144B of the Act passed by the Ld. AO, as there is the absence of any fresh tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Ld. AO. The reassessment proceedings were thus initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 572/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

availed by the assessee were not disclosed in the original assessment proceedings. He also submitted that reopening of the assessment was based on fresh tangible material and there was no change of opinion made by the AO. 7. Arguments of both the sides have been heard at length

A. Jayapalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Stay Application No.21/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Annamalai Jayapalan, 3/400, 10Th Street, Venkateshwara Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpj 3842 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By V. The Dcit, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.K. Meenatchi Sundaram, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2025 For The

For Respondent: Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

evident that AO only on the basis of records found in the assessment folder has reopened the assessment meaning there was no fresh tangible material in the hands of the AO to justify reopening the assessment; and also failed to satisfy the proviso to section 147 of the Act, which

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 791/COCH/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

based on the same set of information as available at the time of original assessment. No reference was made by the AO to fresh tangible material showing escapement of income from assessment to tax, therefore, it is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income to tax. We have carefully perused the assessment order and found that the AO sought to reopen the assessment merely

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 790/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

based on the same set of information as available at the time of original assessment. No reference was made by the AO to fresh tangible material showing escapement of income from assessment to tax, therefore, it is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income to tax. We have carefully perused the assessment order and found that the AO sought to reopen the assessment merely

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 789/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

based on the same set of information as available at the time of original assessment. No reference was made by the AO to fresh tangible material showing escapement of income from assessment to tax, therefore, it is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income to tax. We have carefully perused the assessment order and found that the AO sought to reopen the assessment merely

The Dhamodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 788/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 25

based on the same set of information as available at the time of original assessment. No reference was made by the AO to fresh tangible material showing escapement of income from assessment to tax, therefore, it is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion, as evident from the assessment order itself as there was no reference to any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income to tax. We have carefully perused the assessment order and found that the AO sought to reopen the assessment merely

Nitin Avantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3). We, therefore, observe that there does not appear to be any fresh tangible material that has come into the possession of the Assessing Officer before recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Even in the recorded reasons ... already with the Assessing Officer at the time of the proceedings under section 143 (3) of the Act. There is no new or fresh tangible material that has been brought on record. This appears to be an attempt to view the same material from a different angle of perception

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

reopening was based on a mere 'change Reliance Industries Ltd 8 ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024 & CO No. 153/MUM/2024 of opinion' without any fresh tangible material; secondly, (ii) there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment; thirdly ... KGD6 Block were duly considered, and the additional depreciation claim was consciously dealt with by the AO. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the reassessment was held to be a mere‘ change of opinion‘. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The issue

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

allegation that the assessee failed to make full and true disclosure of particulars of its income. The Ld. AR also stated that no fresh tangible material came into the possession of Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee. We concur with both these arguments. Upon perusal of orders

M/S Agra Products Pvt.Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Deputy C.I.T Circle -2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

during the course of regular 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. Apparently, the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated on audit objection without there

M/S Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 348/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 07Section 143(3)Section 194I

Apparently, the case has been reopened at the behest of audit objection to make disallowance u/s 194I. However, there is no fresh tangible material before Ld. AO to reopen the case of the assessee to come to a conclusion that certain income escaped assessment. Secondly, the issue of expense

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

limitation in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Re (b): Re-assessment initiated on mere 'change of opinion' no fresh tangible material 41. It may be pointed out that though the powers under section 147/148 are wide, the same are not unfettered or plenary, insofar

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

limitation in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Re (b): Re-assessment initiated on mere 'change of opinion' no fresh tangible material 41. It may be pointed out that though the powers under section 147/148 are wide, the same are not unfettered or plenary, insofar

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

basis of an observation made by the Internal Audit Party, it is pertinent to examine the scope and extent of such information constituting fresh tangible material. In the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT, the Supreme Court has held that an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General