“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

Jagdish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Jhandewalan

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of the report of the investigation wing and no inquiry was conducted by the Ld. AO, the same has also been termed as borrowed satisfaction by the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee. Thus, the entire proceeding is liable to be vitiated as was the crux of the submissions

Alka Yadav, Gurgao vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1769/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1769/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Alka Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, C-06, Block C, Vs. Ward 1(1), South City 2, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana. Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Abppy9248J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 250

fact that the reopening/s 148 is itself illegal, erroneous and bad in law as it was done on ITANo.1769/Del/2025 the basis of incorrect information, borrowed satisfaction without application of independent mind and was merely a verification exercise. 8. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

ITA 427/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

under:- “1. That the L.D A.O Erred In Law as Well As On Facts in Reopening the Assessment o the Basis of a Borrowed Satisfaction. 2. That the L.D A.O Erred In Law as Well As On Facts in not considering the fact that the reasons Recorded in the case ... accounts. Arguing in support of his cross objection, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO had opened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and the information that was brought on record did not constitute a valid reason to believe. It was argued that at best it could

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Raghvender Shankar Finance & Investment Company Private Limted, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

supra) is reproduced:- “6.7 In our considered view, the Ld AR has correctly argued that the reasons in present case are based on borrowed satisfaction of CIT (Central)/income tax investigation wing which is loosely referred to as "Aseem Gupta search operation u/s 132 of the Act". Here ... important to ITA No.8572/Del/2019 highlight the striking features of the reasons recorded case which show that the reasons are based on borrowed satisfaction only: firstly reasons start with some search operation conducted on one Shri Aseem Gupta on 26.03.2010. What are the important findings of said search operations

Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Nks Holdings P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

ITA 6690/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Nks Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No.1, Central Circle-32, Sangatrashan, New Delhi. Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. Pan: Aakcs7827C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.317/17-18/2980 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-32, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act to be vitiated for reasons that same are not based on any live link and mere borrowed satisfaction from information received from investigation of SFIO but as to bring home this contention ld. AR has relied the findings and conclusions in case

Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

erred in sustaining the order passed by ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that "rubber stamp" reasons in present case are based on borrowed satisfaction and are without independent application of mind. Because Ld. Assessing officer has just reproduced the conclusion of investigation wing that M/s Rising Portfolio India ... Solutions Pvt. Ltd. are two different companies and assessee received share capital of Rs.30,00,000/- each from both the companies. Indeed it is "Borrowed Satisfaction", since later on during the reassessment proceedings Ld. A.O himself accepted that there is only one company (i.e., M/s Rising Portfolio India

Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Raigarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.513/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Pawan Kumar Agrawal Lal Tanki, Bus Stand Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Acipa0094L

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153D

Kumar Agrawal; and (ii) Sr. No. 2: Smt. Mamta Agrawal and Sr.No.2 is the appellant assessee before this Bench. Rather, it is only borrowed satisfaction from the A.O due to which the approval u/s.153D of the Act was granted summarily in the case of the assessee which vitiates such ... which, the request letter has been furnished before the competent authority. That further, the entire action has been taken on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. 8. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 299 Taxman 385/467

Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Ito Ward 26(1)(7), A-16, Ajanta Apartment, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Murar Road, Mulund West, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqfps 6009 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Chothani, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

without independent application of mind by the AO — without independent application of mind by the AO gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That is not this gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That is not this gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That ... admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed satisfaction. 7.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, w In view of aforesaid discussion, we reject the arguments of the reject the arguments of the Ld. counsel

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Adv

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153A

assessee submitted that reasons have been recorded on the assessee submitted that reasons have been recorded the assessee submitted that reasons have been recorded borrowed satisfaction borrowed satisfaction and without application of without application of mind by the sel for the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer. The Ld. coun

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

reopening of the assessment proceedings, despite the fact that the same has been made by the AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of his mind. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... reopening of the assessment proceedings, despite the fact that the same has been made by the AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of his mind. 14.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2770/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. Lekha, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 37

fresh material and beyond 4 years in just a change of opinion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an order on borrowed satisfaction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing the notice u/s. 148 without following the procedures prescribed u/s.149. 5. For the above reasons

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed on merits the various legal contentions in the C

ITA 2242/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Nikhil

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250

facts truly and fully during the course of assessment proceedings hence the entire reopening is bad in law: Reopening assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction: 4. erred in reopening the assessment proceedings and passing order under section 147 of the Act solely on the basis of the investigation report ... Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmadabad and not on the basis of any independent opinion formed by AO and therefore the assessment is reopened on borrowed satisfaction leading to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law; No approval obtained from PCIT for reopening assessment: 5. erred in re-opening the assessment proceedings

Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is bad-in-law as the jurisdiction was assumed without application of mind and based on borrowed satisfaction, no independent inquiry was conducted by the Ld. AO, as evident from the "reasons to believe," which lack any reference to investigation. The proceedings were Musaddilal

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur vs. Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

Section 69A of the Act. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment before the CIT(A), and submitted that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without any independent verification and that the loans were genuine and properly documented. During the appeal, the assessee ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai