← 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

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

nexus between reasons recorded and belief formed as to escapement of income. 2. The assessee objects against the reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction being reopening only from information on ITD portal. 3. The assessee objects against the reopening on the ground of absence of sanction of chief ... subsequent action of Assessing Officer is void ab initio. The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer made reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. It is an admitted fact that the ITA 331/Srt/2019 Farha S Kadri Vs ITO information was received from Investigation Wing, therefore, cannot

Sunshine Merchants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1539/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-4(1), 601, Sunshine Plaza, Niagaum Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Cross Road, Dadar East, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400014. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aagca 1771 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 143(3)

reassessment u/s reassessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on the basis 143(3)/147 of the Act on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing and merely repeating ... assessee is that the AO has 5.3 The main plea of the assessee is that the AO has reopened the case on a borrowed satisfaction and has not reopened the case on a borrowed satisfaction and has not reopened the case on a borrowed satisfaction and has not conducted

Mohd Arif Hamidulla Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-38, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1895/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and therefore rendering the whole re assessment bad in law and also on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs.14

M/S Sakaar Commercial (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 137Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

income escaping the assessment. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also took the alternative plea that AO has recorded reason on borrowed satisfaction as there is no live link between the material received by the O and the reasons recorded. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the reopening of case ... borrowed satisfaction is also bad and can not be sustained as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). 8. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied heavily

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

contended that lastly the Ld. PCIT has not recorded his own substantive and independent satisfaction and in fact it is a case of borrowed satisfaction as the revisionary jurisdiction was exercised on the basis of audit objection. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised

Shri. Arvind Satinderpal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Arvinderpal Satinderpal Ahuja V. Ito (International Taxation) -1(1)(1) Room No. 114, 1St Floor 21/23A, Sunset Heights Scindia House, Ballard Pier Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Addpa9627P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Toprani & Ms. Krupa Toprani Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

facts in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act based on borrowed satisfaction and without applying his mind and his own reason to believe i.e. based on alleged information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit - IX (2), Mumbai

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been held that powers granted u/s 263 has to be exercised with independent application of mind and it can’t be a borrowed satisfaction by the Ld. PCIT without referring the record and applying her mind on that. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hubballi vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank Limited, Dharwad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS], Hubbatli without applying his mind independently to the facts of the case and completed the assessment on borrowed satisfaction which is liable to be cancelled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS], Hubbatli without applying his mind independently to the facts of the case and completed the assessment on borrowed satisfaction which is liable to be cancelled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute

Kiran Kishormal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2127/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts; 2.5 The appellant prays before your Honour, that the Order passed u's. 147 r.ws. 144 of the Act is merely based on borrowed satisfaction of third party without independent application of mind and thus, ought to be quashed. Without prejudice to the above. Ground No. 3- Addition

Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 1177/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Anil SatheFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash mane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

been held that powers granted u/s 263 has to be exercised with independent application of mind and it can’t be a borrowed satisfaction by the Ld. PCIT without referring the record and applying her mind on that. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India

Shri Prakashan Ayyapan Cheravat, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward - 2(4), Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7120/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 37(1)Section 68

erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and therefore rendering the whole reassessment bad in law on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 15. Therefore, in the above facts, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. This view

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7359/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 15. Therefore, in the above facts, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. This view

M/S Ravi Developments, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, In ITA No. 764/Mum/2022 in ground nos

ITA 766/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ravi Developments Acit –Central Circle – 2 V. Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor 76, Laxmi Palace, Mathurdas Road Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400067 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan: Aaafr2516G Thane, Mumbai - 400604 Appellant Respondent

Section 40A(3)

details of purchase was also submitted in page no. 35 7 M/s. Ravi Developments of the APB. The whole addition was made on borrowed satisfaction from VAT department. No proper cross verification was made by the revenue authorities. The ld DR also did not make any strong objection against

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of Range - 3 [2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires ... appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of the Range - 3[2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of Range - 3 [2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires ... appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of the Range - 3[2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2306/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of Range - 3 [2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires ... appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of the Range - 3[2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2305/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of Range - 3 [2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires ... appellant, merely based on the information obtained from the officer of the Range - 3[2], the case has been re-opened which amounts to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Act requires

Jt Comm. of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Limited (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Lid), Mumbai

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

ITA 1295/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jt. Cit (Osd), M/S. Grasim Industries Limited Central Circle-1(4), (Successor To Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.) A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Mumbai Vs. S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojia
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 47

issue of LTCL on the facts of the (iii) The revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act had been apparently triggered only based on borrowed satisfaction i.e., Audit Objection and not based on independent application of mind by the ld. PCIT. 4. Following the above decision of the co-ordinate ... case. The ld. DR further contended that the order of the ld. Pr. CIT was a speaking order and not based on borrowed satisfaction as 4 Jt. CIT (OSD) vs. M/s. Grasim Industries Limited alleged by the assessee. The ld. DR further contended that the ld. Pr. CIT has very