← 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

ITO 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2339/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

issued by the AO to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of aforesaid "reasons to believe" which reflect the "borrowed satisfaction" is bad in law. And further, since the foundation of the impugned assessment order framed thereafter under Section 147 of the Act lies ... submitted that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment in the present case cannot be said to be based on the borrowed satisfaction as the investigation by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata is only by another arm of the Revenue. 9. On the other hand, the learned Authorised

Income Tax Officer 24(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2338/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

issued by the AO to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of aforesaid "reasons to believe" which reflect the "borrowed satisfaction" is bad in law. And further, since the foundation of the impugned assessment order framed thereafter under Section 147 of the Act lies ... submitted that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment in the present case cannot be said to be based on the borrowed satisfaction as the investigation by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata is only by another arm of the Revenue. 9. On the other hand, the learned Authorised

M/S Radiance Exim Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6635/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6635/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Radiance Exim Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-8(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, Vs. Shiv Chawl No.2, Shiv Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Sagar Sejar Samiti, Tanaji Road, Mumbai-400020. Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr4706L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai Dated 31.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Action Of Ao To Re-Open The Assessment Of Ay 2007-08 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 26.03.2014 & Consequent Passing Of Re-Assessment Order Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015, Which According To The Ld. Ar, Is Bad In Law For Several Reasons (Infra). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Did Not Had The Requisite Jurisdiction To Re-Open The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Because The Reasons Recorded By The Ao Dated 18.03.2014 (Refer Page

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

that there is infact any escapement of income, which exercise is totally absent in this case. According to the Ld. AR, based on the borrowed satisfaction of the DGIT(Inv.), the AO has reopened the assessment which he could not have done, so the AO could not have validily ... application of mind of AO while recording reasons about the escapement of income. Further according to Ld AR, it is a case of borrowed satisfaction from DIT (Inv.) and not of the AO which itself vitiates the re-opening. Be that as it may, one of the other issue brought

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

settled position of law that, a reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

settled position of law that, a reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

settled position of law that, a reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

initiated on the assumption of escapement of income; escapement of income; (g) reopening is on the mere borrowed reopening is on the mere borrowed satisfaction of the investigation wing without any application of mind. investigation wing without any application of mind. investigation wing without any application of mind ... contention that reasons have been recorded on the f the contention that reasons have been recorded on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction, the argument of the basis of the borrowed satisfaction, the argument of the Ld. counsel Ld. counsel filed in the form of written submission form of written

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

income, the source of fresh tangible material is immaterial / irrelevant. The only requirement under law is that the belief should not be based on borrowed satisfaction rather the belief should be arrived at by Ld. AO on the basis of independent application of mind. In the present case

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

there was no tangible material before the Ld A.O for reopening the assessment and the assessment was re-opened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and d. the Ld. A.O. had failed to appreciate that the SEBI had given a clean cheat to the appellant, therefore, the reasons

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that borrowed satisfaction would not constitute valid information for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act thereby vitiating the consequential re-assessment

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that borrowed satisfaction would not constitute valid information for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act thereby vitiating the consequential re-assessment

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that borrowed satisfaction would not constitute valid information for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act thereby vitiating the consequential re-assessment

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that borrowed satisfaction would not constitute valid information for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act thereby vitiating the consequential re-assessment

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that borrowed satisfaction would not constitute valid information for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act thereby vitiating the consequential re-assessment

Bashir Ahmed Abdurrahman Matte, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

section 263 of the Act, was required to be set aside as void ab initio, since the initiation of 263 proceedings was on a borrowed satisfaction of the assessing officer and hence bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT is not justified

Paramjit Singh Seehra, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271

against the maker of the statement but not against any other party implicated by it. e) Addition made by the Ld.AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction and not his own satisfaction. f) Without considering the submission made vide letter dated December 26, 2016. g) Alleging that addition in the total ... this piece of evidence corroborates that the statement of the persons linked with the transaction and that the reopening is not based on the borrowed satisfaction as it is evident that the Assessing Officer has given a detailed analysis which was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR relied

Mr. Deepak Vishnu Raut- General Manager Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patasanth Maryadit, Mahad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

have no hesitation in holding that the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act had been assumed by the ld. PCIT purely on borrowed satisfaction and not based on independent examination of records which is the mandate provided in section 263(1) of the Act. Hence the revision order passed

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

survey proceedings are tentative; b) the findings, it at all, are of the AO, which if relied on by the POT, would tantamount to borrowed satisfaction; c) the AO has adequate powers to initiate proceedings to effectuate the survey findings, what the PCIT has impugned upon, without awaiting the logical

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

survey proceedings are tentative; b) the findings, it at all, are of the AO, which if relied on by the POT, would tantamount to borrowed satisfaction; c) the AO has adequate powers to initiate proceedings to effectuate the survey findings, what the PCIT has impugned upon, without awaiting the logical

M/S Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Limited Dahanu, Palghar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Ta -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

have no hesitation in holding that the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act had been assumed by the ld. PCIT purely on borrowed satisfaction and not based on independent examination of records which is the mandate provided in section 263(1) of the Act and with independent application