← All Phrases

“escapement of income”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1473,765 judgments

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

Leading authorities on escapement of income

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.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
198 ITR 297 · 1992 · Supreme Court
814
citing judgments

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing escapement of income

Jayantibhai Chimanbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 167/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

also erred in not considering the fact that difference in estimation of cost of acquisition as on 1/04/1981 does not amounts to escapement of income. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to direct the AO to work out LTCG by taking cost of acquisition

Himanshu Daksheshkumar Katwala, Khambhat Anand vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 3. The reasons recorded do not establish any live nexus between the appellant and the alleged escapement of income and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 is invalid. 4. The reassessment proceedings are vitiated as the Assessing Officer failed to follow

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Jaipur

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1765/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

given to various persons/concerns. The same is also unrecorded. Hence, it is a fit case for initiation of assessment proceedings for escapement of income.” 6. The AO, thereafter, mentioned that on the basis of information available with the AO, the A.O. had reason to believe that in this case income

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Jaipur

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1764/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

given to various persons/concerns. The same is also unrecorded. Hence, it is a fit case for initiation of assessment proceedings for escapement of income.” 6. The AO, thereafter, mentioned that on the basis of information available with the AO, the A.O. had reason to believe that in this case income

Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7401/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Mamgai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

opening the Assessment Proceedings. iv) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, there was no escapement of Income which could be re-assessed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 v) On the facts and in the circumstances

Chhabi Lata Sahu, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CTK/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 148

April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section

Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1), Mohali vs. Skycity Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Khrar Punjab

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that there exists reasonable ground to form the belief of escapement of income. Accordingly, the legal grounds as urged by the assessee were rejected. 3.2 On merits, the findings of Ld. AO with respect to each ... also alleged in the reasons for reopening that no return of income was ever filed by the assessee. Accordingly, opinion of escapement of income has been formed by Ld. AO. Pertinently, before reopening the case of the assessee, certain information was called for by DIT (I&CI) qua transaction

Skycity Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Kharar, Rupnagar vs. DCIT Ward 6(1), Chandigarh Jao ITO 6(1) Mohali, Chandigarh

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that there exists reasonable ground to form the belief of escapement of income. Accordingly, the legal grounds as urged by the assessee were rejected. 3.2 On merits, the findings of Ld. AO with respect to each ... also alleged in the reasons for reopening that no return of income was ever filed by the assessee. Accordingly, opinion of escapement of income has been formed by Ld. AO. Pertinently, before reopening the case of the assessee, certain information was called for by DIT (I&CI) qua transaction

Rupinder Singh Duggal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 192Section 54Section 80C

copies of Sale Deed as well as Purchase Deed. The AO passed order u/s.148A[d] of the Act dated 12-03-2024 alleging escapement of income of Rs.69,46,449/- and also issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response the assessee filed his Return of income

Kedgaon Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Solapur

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

ITA 1983/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1983/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kedgaon Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ward-1, Pandharpur Kedgaon Karmala, Solapur – 413202 Maharashtra Pan : Aactk1425B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 147

assessee society, however there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and ld. Assessing Officer formed belief that there is escapement of income. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs.52,53,459/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT

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)

objection is invalid, because the A.O. has not applied his mind independently to relevant materials which suggest 21 Granules India Limited the escapement of income. The assessee also relied upon judicial pronouncement including decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society ... considered view the A.O. independently applied his mind to relevant material available on record and formed a reasonable belief of escapement of income on account of excess allowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act which is evident from the relevant reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Bses Yamuna Power Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5474/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Bses Yamuna Power Limited, Central Circle-32, Room No.359, E2, Ara Centre, Delhi. Vs. Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. [ Pan-Aabcc8569N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. Deepashree Rao, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against Order Dated 23.05.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2016 Of Ld. Assessing Officer/Dcit, Circle-5(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’ ) U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Original Return Of Income Was Filed By Assessee On 29.09.2009 U/S 139(1) Of The Act After Adjusting Brought Forward Losses Of Dcit Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) dt. 23.02.2008 that assessee has made extensive purchase of capital goods at exorbitant price is tangible material suggesting the escapement of income and not a mere change of opinion which shows that case of the assessee can be reopened u/s 147 of the Act. 5. That ... that assessee has made extensive purchase of capital goods at exorbitant price is tangible material suggesting the DCIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. escapement of income and not a mere change of opinion which shows that case of the assessee can be reopened

Ankur Kiritkumar Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1647/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80G

erred in invoking provisions of section 148 and framing the order under section 147. The appellant submits that there was no escapement of income. The notice under section 148 and order under section 147 be quashed. 3.0 The assessing officer and the CIT(A) erred in framing orders without providing

Kumar Talkies, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bareilly-New, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 588/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(3)Section 271Section 50C(2)

validly vested with the jurisdiction of the "Assessing Officer" in the case of the "appellant". 2. BECAUSE reason to believe for escapement of income and notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were recorded/issued by the Income- tax authority not vested with the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9012/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9011/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9010/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9009/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9008/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9007/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case