← 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

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

income for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C). 6. The Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had made full and true disclosure of all particulars in the return of income, and the disallowance of interest payment to APIIC is merely a difference of opinion on interpretation

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5599/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

Rs.2,95,60,05,170/- and Book Profits u/s.115JB of the Act of Rs.22,72,20,97,009/-. Thus, the assessee had made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C as well as revisionary proceedings

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

Rs.2,95,60,05,170/- and Book Profits u/s.115JB of the Act of Rs.22,72,20,97,009/-. Thus, the assessee had made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C as well as revisionary proceedings

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

emphasize that an assessment could not be re-opened where there was no failure on the part of the appellant in making full and true disclosure of the material facts, and it was merely based on a "change of opinion." In my considered view, the present case was re-opened

Purnagiri Rice Mills, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

clearly reflective of the position that during the course of the assessment Page 8 of 12 proceedings the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts in relation to the assessment. As a matter of fact, it would be necessary to note that the notice

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

issue of immunity from penalty and prosecution by the Settlement Commission, delivered has held that: the assessee ought to have a) made full and true disclosure before the Commission b) Co-operated with the Commission in the proceedings before it. ( para 6) It further held that "having regard

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay
Section 132(4)Section 147

derivative transactions, including contract notes, demat statements, payment confirmations and broker-wise bank statements. It was contended that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment, and therefore, in the absence of any failure on its part, the jurisdictional ... relevant assessment year. Consequently, the first proviso to section 147-requiring a failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts—had no application to the facts of the case. It was submitted that the reassessment was founded upon specific

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

make the aforesaid disclosure. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aforesaid disclosure. 35. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aforesaid disclosure. 35. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aforesaid disclosure. 35. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

make the aforesaid disclosure. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aforesaid disclosure. 35. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aforesaid disclosure. 35. In the above context it has been held in various judgments that the duty of an assessee to make full and true disclosure is limited to the primary facts only. Assessee is not under obligation to disclose the inference drawn from the aforesaid primary facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Ajay Golechaa, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer. Had it been the intention of the assesse to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income accordingly, which was surrendered later during the course of assessment proceedings

Indian Tool Technology Centre, Jalandhar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

materials on record and various judicial precedents cited before us. On the merits of this case we find that the assessee has made full and true disclosure of his interest income received and the claim 14 I.T.A. No. 262/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 of expenditure by way of deduction

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Glorishine Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2209/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(5)Section 72

facts and the scheme of section 270A, held that the penalty was misconceived. It was observed that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of all primary facts in its return as well as in the course of assessment. The entire loss was recorded, explained, and accepted

Vertex Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 26(2), C R Building, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2064/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Delhi High Court has consistently held that the recording of failure to make a full and true disclosure is a mandatory requirement for reopening an assessment after the four-year period where the return has been assessed u/s 143(3). This condition must be clearly documented by the Assessing Officer

Shresth Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

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

filed copy of audited P&L a/c, Balance sheet, Tax Audit Report along with ROI 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. For aforesaid reasons, it is not a case

Shalibhadra Exprorts Pvt Ltd, Mumabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan KR. Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

report and audited P&L A/c and balance sheet along with the 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. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee