“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

Viva Style and Fashion (India) Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Old Ward 4(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69

facts in reopening assessment u/s 147 on invalid, insufficient, incorrect and vague reasons recorded for reopening without any independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction.” 3. The assessee company filed return of income on 05-02- 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 83,960/-. It was processed

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer fails to apply independent mind to the facts of the assessee’s case and merely acts on borrowed satisfaction. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) laid down that there must

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

ITA 2109/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

second proviso to section 143 (3) of the Act has to be the satisfaction of the learned assessing officer is not borrowed satisfaction. (Applicable to all four years) d) reference made by the assessing officer to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law as the same ... reproduced as it is. Thus, there is no application of mind and therefore there cannot be any" satisfaction’ of AO. It is a borrowed satisfaction. For this proposition he referred to page 184-186 of the PB wherein the extract of judicial dictionary of K.J. Lyer was filed to show

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

ITA 2108/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

second proviso to section 143 (3) of the Act has to be the satisfaction of the learned assessing officer is not borrowed satisfaction. (Applicable to all four years) d) reference made by the assessing officer to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law as the same ... reproduced as it is. Thus, there is no application of mind and therefore there cannot be any" satisfaction' of AO. It is a borrowed satisfaction. For this proposition he referred to page 184-186 of the PB wherein the extract of judicial dictionary of K.J. Iyer was filed to show

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 2106/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

Information before proceeding any further in the given case. This also leads to the possibility that the Assessing Officer merely based on the borrowed satisfaction has carried out the said proceedings which is not permissible in law. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for various

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4485/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4484/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Swikrutee Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 610/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-Cc-7(3) Swikrutee Finance Private Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Office No. Ii 289 Emca Vs. Mumbai- 400020 House, S B S Road, Mumbai 400001 Pan: Aaocs2723H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Anand Mundra Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Is Registered As Non-Banking Financial Company (Nbfc) With Reserve Bank Of India & Engaged In The Financial Requirement Of Emerging Small & Medium Enterprises (Sme) Segment, Including Rendering An Advisory Services Relating To Financial Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disclose fully and truly all material facts thereby violating the provisions of proviso to section 147. Further the assessment was reopened based on the borrowed satisfaction and without making any independent enquiry and recording any finding by the Assessing Officer. Further the unsecured loan

Deepti Shreyas Talpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrideepti Shreyas Talpade Vs. Ito Ward 24(1)(5) 701, 7Th Floor, Dlh Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Enclave, 90’ Wide Dp Road, Piramal Chamber, Near Windmere Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpt6420L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

information received from the DDIT(Inv) Unit 1(4) of who has conducted search operation on Cosmos group and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction b) merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without any material on record c) Relying on third party statements and without corroborating ... maker of the statement but not against any other party implicated by it. g) Addition made by the Ld AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction and not his own satisfaction. P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 272/mum/2025. h) Without considering the various submissions made by the Appellant

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

information received from the Addl DIT(Inv) Unit 1 of who has conducted search operation on Cosmos group and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction b) merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without any material on record c) Relying on third party statements and without corroborating ... maker of the statement but not against any other party implicated by it. g) Addition made by the Ld AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction and not his own satisfaction. h) Without considering the various submissions made by the Appellant 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

reasons recorded are 'reasons to suspect which only required further enquiry and cannot be regarded as 'reasons to believe' and also based on borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing that assessee has escaped assessment. Sir, it is further submitted that on perusal of these reasons would reveal that there ... reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons recorded are incorrect and vague and not based on any tangible material and merely based on borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing, it does not have live nexus with the formation of belief. It was at best a suspicion and therefore, the assumption

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

Digambar Ramchandra Sawant Bhosle, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1772/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Parekh, ARSFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr.DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 68

that the same is required to be quashed and set aside, without appreciating the facts and Documentation, the Order were initiated on the borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer forming their own independent opinion, Change of opinion and also without following and complying with other mandatory provisions ... read with section 144B of the Act was bad in law, illegal and invalid without appreciating the facts and documentation, initiated on the borrowed satisfaction, and based on change of opinion and also without following and complying with other mandatory provisions of the Act. It may be stated here that

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 276/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

Junsdictional assessing officer. Thus, the reopening of the assessment proceedings without there being any incriminating material on records and merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction itself is bad in law. The assessing officer himself has failed to bring on record any adverse evidence within the time limit prescribed under

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 275/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 274/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

link with the information received by the A.O., and hence the re-opening u/s 147 was done by the A.O. on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, which is not valid in law and require to be quashed ab initio. The appellant has provided all material and evidences to prove