“borrowed satisfaction”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1471,326 judgments

The decision most relied on for borrowed satisfaction is PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on borrowed satisfaction

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.

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

338 ITR 51 · 2011 · High Court

295

citing judgments

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.

217 ITR 597 · 1996 · Supreme Court

180

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court

164

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. Atul Jain

299 ITR 383 · 2008 · High Court

147

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 are not valid if the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer is vague, scanty, and lacks specific details linking it to the assessee's transactions.

Judgments citing borrowed satisfaction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut, Meerut (U.P.) vs. Nita Rastogi, Meerut (U.P.)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3382/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Acit Vs Nita Rastogi Circle-1(1)(1) 32-C, Janta Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut-250001. Meerut-250002. Pan-Aanpr7715E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 690

after considering the submissions of the assessee, has allowed the legal grounds of the assessee by observing that reasons recorded were on borrowed satisfaction without appreciating the facts and without spelling out the basic details of the transaction as to how the assessee has claimed LTCG ... DCIT vs Rakesh Ramanlal Shah reported in 477 ITR 296 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that AO reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction without establishing the live link between the information and material on record and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. He also relied

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ;ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred ... that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Sunrise Propbuild Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1258/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

initiation of reassessment Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order ... that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred

Sunrise Porpbuild Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1257/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Marigold Merchandise Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1256/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Marigold Merchandise Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 4/36, Dda Market, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aaecm0483E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred ... form of conclusions 10 Marigold Merchandise Pvt Ltd. “one after the other” and that the satisfaction arrived at by the AO was a “borrowed satisfaction” and at best “a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report.” 13. As in the above case, even in the present case, the Court

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

merely adopted the conclusions of the Investigation Wing in a mechanical manner, without independent application of mind, thereby rendering the reasons a mere "borrowed satisfaction.” The report of the Investigation Wing, it was submitted, was itself based only on exchange-level data and not on any enquiry with brokers, operators

Intergrator Consultants Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 250

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not treating the re-opening of assessment as bad-in-law since the re-opening was entirely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind or independent enquiries on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... consequently the order of the assessment was illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the reopening was entirely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind or independent enquiries on the part of the AO. It was further argued that the assessment was re-opened

Sapna Nainesh Jatania, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 469/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 120(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessee is engaged in trading activity of shares on regular basis. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, is based on borrowed satisfaction. In addition to this, in the reasons recorded, it is mentioned that assessee has claimed exemption under section 10 (38) of the Act, however, the fact ... assessee is engaged in trading activity of shares on regular basis. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, is based on borrowed satisfaction. In addition to this, in the reasons recorded, it is mentioned that assessee has claimed exemption under section 10 (38) of the Act, however, the fact

Sapna Nainesh Jatania, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 449/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 120(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Devtech M2M Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 4Th Floor, Sava House, Opp. 1(1), Pune. New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aadcb4376Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Cit(A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By Learned Ao-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Thereby Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2,22,00,000 As Against Nil Returned Income. 2. Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Granted An Appropriate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant For Making Requisite

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and ought to be quashed as notice u/s 148 is issued in mechanical manner from borrowed satisfaction. 4. Appellant contends that, learned AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of ITA, 1961 as necessary prior approval u/s 151 of ITA, 1961 is obtained

Sga Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 5844/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292BSection 68

notice u/s 148. He mechanically relied on the report of investigation wing without conducting any independent enquiry that means belief formed is based on borrowed satisfaction and not his own satisfaction. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 is not valid. 4. That the appellant has already disclosed fully and truly

Sunil Madhyani, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 586/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.586/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Madhyani Ward No.24, Behind Hotel Malwa Durg (C.G.)- 491 001 Pan: Apipm9839G

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

upholding the validity of reopening u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening is bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, and in the absence of any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts

M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

case before us. It was submitted that the very reopening of the case was bad in law because it was based on the borrowed satisfaction of the Investigation Wing and the AO had not done any independent enquiries before coming to a conclusion of income escaping assessment. He drew ... accounts and the AO had blindly accepted the report of the Investigation Wing and initiated proceedings under section 148 on the basis of this borrowed satisfaction which made the issue of the notice under section 148 itself invalid. For this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon the orders

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

r.w.s.147 is unjust, arbitrary, and passed without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee 8. That the reopening of assessment under section 147 based on borrowed satisfaction without proper application of mind and thus the reopening of assessment under section 147 is bad in law and liable to set aside ... case reopening of assessment u/s 147 of IT Act is bad in law and illegal. 2. That the reopening has been done on borrowed satisfaction and without proper application of mind hence the notice issued u/s 148 of IT Act is bad in law. 3. That on the facts

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

down for reopening the assessment is not followed. 9. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, erred in reopening the assessment basis the borrowed satisfaction of investigation done by SEBI, only relying on the statement of brokers, which are not related to the transaction by the appellant and without

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

Aroma Chemicals, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Moradabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2465/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

considered view that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act in this case amounts to ‘borrowed satisfaction’ as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas ... escaped assessment. The conclusions of the Assessing officer are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a “borrowed satisfaction”. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment