← All Phrases

“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

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

another aspect also to formation of the belief and that is the satisfaction should be the own satisfaction of the AO and not the borrowed satisfaction. If the AO re-opens an assessment simply on the basis of satisfaction recorded by some other authority like Sales Tax, Excise or Director

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

another aspect also to formation of the belief and that is the satisfaction should be the own satisfaction of the AO and not the borrowed satisfaction. If the AO re-opens an assessment simply on the basis of satisfaction recorded by some other authority like Sales Tax, Excise or Director

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 148 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of another person/department and without independent application of mind. 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred

Mark Foods, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without any independent application of mind thereon. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without any independent application of mind thereon. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

independent inquiry or verification was undertaken by the AO prior to formation of belief, and the action under section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction. It was also highlighted that even in the reasons recorded for reopening, reference was made to unrelated assessment years, and there were apparent inconsistencies between ... incorrect facts pertaining to different assessment years. The assessee has relied upon several judicial precedents to support the contention that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical recording of reasons is invalid. 8.2 We find from the record that the Ld. CIT(A), in all the appeals

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 356/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

independent inquiry or verification was undertaken by the AO prior to formation of belief, and the action under section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction. It was also highlighted that even in the reasons recorded for reopening, reference was made to unrelated assessment years, and there were apparent inconsistencies between ... incorrect facts pertaining to different assessment years. The assessee has relied upon several judicial precedents to support the contention that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical recording of reasons is invalid. 8.2 We find from the record that the Ld. CIT(A), in all the appeals

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 355/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

independent inquiry or verification was undertaken by the AO prior to formation of belief, and the action under Section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction. It was also highlighted that even in the reasons recorded for reopening, reference was made to unrelated assessment years, and there were apparent inconsistencies between ... incorrect facts pertaining to different assessment years. The assessee has relied upon several judicial precedents to support the contention that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical recording of reasons is invalid. 8.2 We find from the record that the Ld. CIT(A), in all the appeals

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 354/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

independent inquiry or verification was undertaken by the AO prior to formation of belief, and the action under section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction. It was also highlighted that even in the reasons recorded for reopening, reference was made to unrelated assessment years, and there were apparent inconsistencies between ... incorrect facts pertaining to different assessment years. The assessee has relied upon several judicial precedents to support the contention that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical recording of reasons is invalid. 8.2 We find from the record that the Ld. CIT(A), in all the appeals

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 353/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 1St Floor, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ V/S. The I.T.O. Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakca 3027 E Assessee By: Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Five Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 To 2017-18 Arising From The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act). Since Common Issues Are Involved, All These Appeals Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

independent inquiry or verification was undertaken by the AO prior to formation of belief, and the action under Section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction. It was also highlighted that even in the reasons recorded for reopening, reference was made to unrelated assessment years, and there were apparent inconsistencies between ... incorrect facts pertaining to different assessment years. The assessee has relied upon several judicial precedents to support the contention that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical recording of reasons is invalid. 8.2 We find from the record that the Ld. CIT(A), in all the appeals

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 16528 Vishnu Colony, Raliway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 768/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

grounds of appeal has erred in confirming the action of the AO in re-opening the case u/s 148, just on the basis of "borrowed satisfaction" as per the report of the DCIT, Centre Circle Dehradun, without any independent application of mind and the said re-opening ITA No.765&768/CHD/2024 ... A.Y.2011-12 3 having been made on borrowed satisfaction, deserves to be quashed as per the binding judgement of 'Meenakshi Overseas' of Delhi High Court 395 ITR 677, & other such case laws. b) That the Ld. AO and CIT(A) has grossly erred in re-opening the case u/s 148 without

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 1652 8 Vishnu Colony, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra, Haryana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 765/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

grounds of appeal has erred in confirming the action of the AO in re-opening the case u/s 148, just on the basis of "borrowed satisfaction" as per the report of the DCIT, Centre Circle Dehradun, without any independent application of mind and the said re-opening ITA No.765&768/CHD/2024 ... A.Y.2011-12 3 having been made on borrowed satisfaction, deserves to be quashed as per the binding judgement of 'Meenakshi Overseas' of Delhi High Court 395 ITR 677, & other such case laws. b) That the Ld. AO and CIT(A) has grossly erred in re-opening the case u/s 148 without

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 3059/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that learned A.O. has reopened appellant's case based on borrowed satisfaction and without having done any further enquiry. 1.5 Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not providing opportunity to cross

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2814/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that learned A.O. has reopened appellant's case based on borrowed satisfaction and without having done any further enquiry. 1.5 Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not providing opportunity to cross

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2813/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that learned A.O. has reopened appellant's case based on borrowed satisfaction and without having done any further enquiry. 1.5 Under the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not providing opportunity to cross

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

information received from another Ld. AO without any material to form an independent opinion for escapement of income by Ld. AO on the borrowed satisfaction not permitted u/s 147 of the of the Act. Hence, notice u/s 148 is bad in law: (i) That Ld. AO (ACIT ... recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment without verifying its own records. Hence, the initiation of reopening of assessment is purely on borrowed satisfaction from the information supplied by Ld. AO of the Company was not permitted to record the escapement of income within the meaning of provision of Section

Dilip Kumar Hazarimal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2452/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

purely on suspicion without any direct evidence against the Appellant, merely on the basis of untested and uncorroborated report of Investigation Wing and on borrowed satisfaction of the investigation authorities. 2.1. Assessee has also raised additional grounds, as ground no.5 and 6 vide application dated 08.10.2024 which are reproduced

Bhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4786/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.AR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 234

circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition by treating

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4058/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

facts fully and truly. It was also contended that the AO has formed belief that there was escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, since he simply relied upon the report of the investigation wing and did not carry out any preliminary enquiry to examine the applicability ... that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the AO has entertained belief about escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. Hence, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment of Asst. Year

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Developers and Realtors, Mumbai

ITA 3041/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

facts fully and truly. It was also contended that the AO has formed belief that there was escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, since he simply relied upon the report of the investigation wing and did not carry out any preliminary enquiry to examine the applicability ... that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the AO has entertained belief about escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. Hence, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment of Asst. Year

DCIT - CC -7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 3040/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)
Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

facts fully and truly. It was also contended that the AO has formed belief that there was escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, since he simply relied upon the report of the investigation wing and did not carry out any preliminary enquiry to examine the applicability ... that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the AO has entertained belief about escapement of income on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. Hence, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment of Asst. Year