← All Phrases

“full and true disclosure”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147449 judgments

The decision most relied on for full and true disclosure is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), cited in 439 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on full and true disclosure

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.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO
41 ITR 191 · 1961 · Supreme Court
384
citing judgments

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

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.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT
398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court
137
citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

Judgments citing full and true disclosure

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 40/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 39/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 66/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

ITA 170/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 167/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 97/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 163/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 143/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

The Dy. CIT- Cir.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfilds Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 152/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

income in the return and concealing its particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction. The defense of the appellant company is that full and true disclosure in computation bf income which is accompanied to the return of income has been made and hence, there is neither concealment nor inaccurate particulars

The ACIT Cent. Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developers Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2381/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrythe Acit, Cc-6(4), Vs Airmid Developers Ltd. Room No. 1925, 19Th M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Floor, Connought Place, Air India Building, New Delhi-110001. Nariman Point, Pan: Aagca5601G Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

recorded are based on the facts already placed on record. Thus, there is no failure on the part of the Applicant to make full and true disclosure. Hence, the notice dated 29.03.2019 issued under section 148(1) of the Act is barred by limitation and the assessment order dated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

there was clear involvement of "change of opinion" and the proceedings of reopening could be valid and legal only if there was no full and true disclosure of material facts, on the part of the assessee. This is clear by the proviso to Section ... relevant material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has invalidated the reassessment proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a “full and true disclosure” on the part of the assessee and the AO has reopened the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

years, it would have to be shown that the assessee did not file a return or that he did not make a full and true disclosure. It is an admitted position that the assessee had filed a return, therefore, the only question which remains to be open is whether ... assessee made a full and true disclosure or not. In the present case 11 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. ITO there is no allegation in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of the relevant facts. In fact, there

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National-Eassessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 358/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that there cannot be a re-assessment on the basis of change of opinion. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee has given full and true disclosure of all materials during the original assessment and there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

rded of failure on the part of the assessee in making full rded of failure on the part of the assessee in making full and true disclosure,is devoid of merit and in the nature of an and true disclosure,is devoid of merit and in the nature ... prescribing‘producing books of amount section 147 of the Act prescribing‘producing books of amount does not amount to full and true disclosure of material facts’, does not amount to full and true disclosure of material facts’, does not amount to full and true disclosure of material facts

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sums Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 860/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 153C

strength of the Ld. CIT Appeal Order the Ld. AO filed Writ and submitted that Shri Sanjay Jain had not made a full and true disclosure of their income and the manner in which the income was derived. The relevant scanned 145 ITA NO. 860/JP/2016 DCIT, CC-3,JAIPUR

Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Janitor Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result additions as made by the Assessing Officer on this score are directed to be deleted

ITA 3040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13
Section 137Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

annual report and audited P&L A/c and balance sheet along with return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is pertinent to mention here that even though

M/S. J S Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 to 9 pertaining to the merits of the matter are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 2097/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S L JainFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

without making any observations or additions/disallowances. Therefore, it was contended by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant that the Appellant had made full and true disclosure of all the primary facts during the assessment proceedings and therefore, the reassessment proceedings, which have been initiated after the expiry of four ... examined during original assessment proceedings. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative 9. contended that the Appellant had failed to make full and true disclosure during the assessment proceedings and in support of the aforesaid, the Ld. Departmental Representative invited our attention to the fact that the Appellant

Mr. Abhijeet Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2920/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 148

satisfied on the basis of tangible material or information subsequently available to him that the assessee had not made full and true disclosure which led to income escaping assessment at the stage when the original assessment was completed. Short of that a re-appreciation of the existing materials which really