← 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

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Central Circle-27, 11/28, Raj Nagar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaypt1709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

filed on 24/09/2011. The re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated on 30/03/2018. The allegation of escapement of income was on the basis of certain entries appearing in the undisclosed bank accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank and Dhanlaxmi Bank. The assessment was completed

The Barot Co-Operative Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

case relating to cash deposits and the fact that the assessee was non-filer for AY 2017-18, reasons were recorded for escapement of income for AY 2017-18 and necessary approval u/s.151(2) of IT Act, 1961 was obtained from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Range, Shimla. Notice

Uma Maheswara Rao Bodapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 292/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Adv. T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

basis of reasons to believe which is further supported by fresh tangible material on the basis of Assessing Officer which suggests escapement of income. The learned CIT (A) also rejected the argument of the assessee in light of additional evidences on addition towards differential amount to capital gain

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

caused to the Revenue 6) Where an item of income which ought to Section 147 be taxed remained untaxed, and there is an escapement of income, as a result of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary facts for computation of income

Anand Immanuel Panchikal, Bangalore vs. DCIT- Circle-6 (1) (1), Bangalore

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

ITA 347/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Anand Immanuel Panchikal Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) B3, South Avenue, No. 12 Ii Floor, Bmtc Building 17Th B. Main, 6Th Block Vs. Koramangala 560095 Koramangala 560095 Pan – Abqpp5573J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 29.12.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At 8% On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Commission Agent And, Therefore, As Per Sec. 44Ad(6) Of The Act He Is Not Eligible To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad. Against The Said Order The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) & Contended That The Mere Deduction Of Tds By The Payee Would Not Treat The Petitioner As Commission Agent & Therefore Prayed To Set Aside The Order. The Assessee Further Contended That No Show Cause Notice Was Issued By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 44A

issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and also granted an opportunity of being heard about the escapement of income. But the AO citing time barring, had passed the assessment order thereafter. Further the assessee was not able to make out his case before

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing was at the most reason to suspect and that the said information was not enough to form the belief of escapement of income of the assessee. He has submitted that various courts of law have held that addition cannot be made on the basis of mere suspicion ... assessment merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1172/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing was at the most reason to suspect and that the said information was not enough to form the belief of escapement of income of the assessee. He has submitted that various courts of law have held that addition cannot be made on the basis of mere suspicion ... assessment merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing was at the most reason to suspect and that the said information was not enough to form the belief of escapement of income of the assessee. He has submitted that various courts of law have held that addition cannot be made on the basis of mere suspicion ... assessment merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1170/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing was at the most reason to suspect and that the said information was not enough to form the belief of escapement of income of the assessee. He has submitted that various courts of law have held that addition cannot be made on the basis of mere suspicion ... assessment merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and therefore, the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income was a borrowed satisfaction. The ld. counsel has submitted that even on merits, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents to prove the identity

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

view of the above analysis, advance received of Rs.31,80,000,00/-for AY 2016-17 is not allowable and thus, escapement of income appears to that extent. From the above analysis, the transaction between the M/s Grand Realcon Private Limited and assessee is pre-arranged transaction. It is proved

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

view of the above analysis, advance received of Rs.31,80,000,00/-for AY 2016-17 is not allowable and thus, escapement of income appears to that extent. From the above analysis, the transaction between the M/s Grand Realcon Private Limited and assessee is pre-arranged transaction. It is proved

M/S Bcl Industries Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 409/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 68Section 69C

wrongly stated, due to typographical error, which does not vitiate the reasons recorded by the AO to form his belief of satisfaction of escapement of income. 6. In this regard, it is seen that in para No.1 (APB-33) of the reasons for issue of notice

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 407/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 68Section 69C

wrongly stated, due to typographical error, which does not vitiate the reasons recorded by the AO to form his belief of satisfaction of escapement of income. 6. In this regard, it is seen that in para No.1 (APB-33) of the reasons for issue of notice

Madhav Infra Projects Ltd (Erstwhile Aashka Constructions P. Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 88/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Madhav Infra Projects Ltd., Dcit, (Erstwhile Aashka Circle-1(1)(1), Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad 4, Madhav House, Nr. Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Baroda, Gujarat Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024/26.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 23.12.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming Action Of Ao Passing An Ex- Parte Order On An Entity That Ceased To Exist Pursuant To Order Of Amalgamation Passed By Hon'Ble High Court. The Order Passed On Non-Entity Is A Nullity & Void Ab Initio That Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

basis of above-mentioned facts, the AO issued notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2016 after duly recording the reasons for prima facie case of escapement of income in the case of ACPL. Due to shortage of time, the AO appears to have gotten the notice served by affixture on the last

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

such transaction which is not reflected in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/-. The reasons for reopening are on the reasons that one Shri Dilip J. Shah (a third party) used ... case of Rushivan Enterprise vs. PCIT, SCA 20420 of 2019 (Guj). The condition precedent for reopening is that there has to be escapement of income chargeable to tax but in the present case this condition was not satisfied, thus, reopening is not justifiable. As regards to reopening, the same

Jel Fianance & Investments Limited, (Formerly Known As Jubiliant Engineering Limited), Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar , AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 28

opened based on audit objection, it cannot be said that Ld. AO had tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the absence of both tangible material and reason to believe

Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 373/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144B

difference as interest received on foreign contribution received and dismissed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no escapement of income, but in fact the amount of Rs.16,70,155/- had been inadvertently included in a different head of receipt i.e. “receipt from main object ... same total receipts have been shown in Form ITR-7 also and hence it is not a case of escapement of income. The only mistake which had happened was that, the amount of Rs.16,70,155/- has been offered as ITA No.373/Hyd/2024 5 income under the head “receipt from main

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

regular assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year first, there must be an escapement of income, and second, the assessee must not fail to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 6.4 The primary question is whether ... assessment. It is only then that the four year period will apply. The larger period of six years can be invoked if the escapement of income was due to non-disclosure of all material facts as mentioned in the second proviso to section 147. Therefore, the first question that

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

relevant to A.Y.2015-16 has escaped assessment as per provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act and thus it has led to the escapement of income to such extent” 7. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that the reasons as recorded by the AO for reopening

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue have no merit and are hereby dismissed

ITA 1271/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Central Circle-27, 11/28, Raj Nagar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaypt1709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

filed on 24/09/2011. The re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated on 30/03/2018. The allegation of escapement of income was on the basis of certain entries appearing in the undisclosed bank accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank and Dhanlaxmi Bank. The assessment was completed