← All Phrases

“notice under section 148”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 1487,377 judgments

The decision most relied on for notice under section 148 is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on notice under section 148

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments citing notice under section 148

Ghanshyam Madhusudan Soni, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1717/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

consequently after recording the ITA Nos.296/Ahd/2018 & 1717/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Page 3 of 7 reasons, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2016 which was served upon the assessee on 31.03.2016. The assessee did not file any return of income in response ... notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.06.2016 and served upon the assessee thereby the assessee was required to furnish the details as per notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee did not attend

Ghanshyam Madhusudan Soni, Arvalli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Modasa

In the result, appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 296/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

consequently after recording the ITA Nos.296/Ahd/2018 & 1717/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Page 3 of 7 reasons, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2016 which was served upon the assessee on 31.03.2016. The assessee did not file any return of income in response ... notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.06.2016 and served upon the assessee thereby the assessee was required to furnish the details as per notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee did not attend

Rasun Exports Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 435/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rasun Exports Pvt. Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O. Katrapati & Associate, Circle – 3(1), 1-1-298/2/B/3, Sowbhagya Hyderabad. Avenue Apartments, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1 – 500020, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Aabcr0773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad, Ca Appeared For Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, CA appeared for Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50C

this higher value should be considered, resulting in escaped income of Rs. 6,35,25,000/- and hence, Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 29.06.2021, after obtaining necessary sanctions as per Section 151. Thereafter, assessee submitted replies on 27/08/2022, 10/04/2023, 17/04/2023

Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 39/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Bhardwaj Harshvadan Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1(2)(3), Vs. 201, A Block, Jasper Now Ward – 1(2)(1), Homes, Nr. Sears Towers, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat, 390015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arhpp4034D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Is A Delay Of 91 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Received By Him On 18.11.2023 And

For Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

that the assessee had jointly purchased an immovable property of Rs.70 Lacs during the F.Y. 2010-11. There was no response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 and no compliance was made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessment was completed

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

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

That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was ought to have considered the fact that before assuming jurisdiction under section 147 and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, learned A.O. failed to bring on record any findings or material about failure on the part of the Assessment Year ... Department, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording reasons thereof and obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2019 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee did not comply the said notice

Jel Fianance & Investments Limited, (Formerly Known As Jubiliant Engineering Limited), Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar , AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 28

ought to have held that the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts of the case in issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The CIT(A) ought to held that the assessment is bad in law and quashed the same for the reasons ... under the normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of Rs. 6,77,32,892/-. Thereafter a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 17-07-2012 and the assessment under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed by the Ld.AO

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped ... escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee 17. We have approached

Mrs Radhika Anup Ramuka, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(4)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Mrs. Radhika Anup Ramuka Ito, Ward 41(4)(3) 604, Orian-C-Vasant Galaxy, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W) Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 090 Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

return of income for the reasons more specifically mentioned in grounds of appeal no 4. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022 pursuant to order passed under section 148A(d) purporting to be pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court ... Agarwal and Ors. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the issue of notice under section 148 is without jurisdiction and hence, the consequent assessment order needs to be quashed. The appellant further, contends that on the facts

Kalpesh Vaghasia, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 214/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 215/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Kalpesh Vaghasia Vs. Ito-32(2)(2) 7Th Floor, 701, Kings Kautilya Bhavan Apartment, Juhu Tara Mumbai. Road, Mumbai-400 049. Pan : Aaepv7332E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R 1. These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 & 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Were Disposed Of Ex Party Which Were Filed Against Assessment Order Is Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act For Both The Years On 27/12/2016. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 Shows That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income. Subsequently The Information Was Received That Assessee Has Indulged In A Share Trading Activities In The Shares Of Caplin Point & Has Earned Short-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 598,630/– Long-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 51,709/– & Loss Of ₹ 2,393,177/– From Future & Option Transactions. However As Per The Broker Note The Assessee Has Made A Short-Term Capital Gain Of ₹ 191,103. Further The Future & Option Transactions Also Needs

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

kalpesh vaghasiya V ITO verification as assessee has not made any submission. Therefore the assessing officer recorded his reasons and issuing notice under section 148 of the act on 31/3/2016. Notice under section 142 (1) was also issued on 1/6/2016 where the sun of the assessee attended and stated that ... transactions and short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,710,789/–. Further assessee has also on a speculation loss of ₹ 790,230/–. Accordingly the notice under section 148 of the act was issued and further notice under section 142 (1) was issued. Similarly it was promised

Kalpesh Vaghasia, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 214/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 215/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Kalpesh Vaghasia Vs. Ito-32(2)(2) 7Th Floor, 701, Kings Kautilya Bhavan Apartment, Juhu Tara Mumbai. Road, Mumbai-400 049. Pan : Aaepv7332E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R 1. These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 & 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Were Disposed Of Ex Party Which Were Filed Against Assessment Order Is Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act For Both The Years On 27/12/2016. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 Shows That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income. Subsequently The Information Was Received That Assessee Has Indulged In A Share Trading Activities In The Shares Of Caplin Point & Has Earned Short-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 598,630/– Long-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 51,709/– & Loss Of ₹ 2,393,177/– From Future & Option Transactions. However As Per The Broker Note The Assessee Has Made A Short-Term Capital Gain Of ₹ 191,103. Further The Future & Option Transactions Also Needs

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

kalpesh vaghasiya V ITO verification as assessee has not made any submission. Therefore the assessing officer recorded his reasons and issuing notice under section 148 of the act on 31/3/2016. Notice under section 142 (1) was also issued on 1/6/2016 where the sun of the assessee attended and stated that ... transactions and short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,710,789/–. Further assessee has also on a speculation loss of ₹ 790,230/–. Accordingly the notice under section 148 of the act was issued and further notice under section 142 (1) was issued. Similarly it was promised

Rajnish Srikishan Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to that extent as per ground number 2 of the

ITA 1124/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

bogus bills from Bhagwati trading company of ₹ 3,567,407/- as per the information provided by the director general of income tax (investigation), notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 30/3/2017. The assessee reiterated its original return of income by letter dated ... assessee has obtained bogus invoices from Bhagwati trading company of 2,430,272. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act on 30/3/2017. The assessee on 4/4/2017 reiterated the original return. Therefore the notice under section 143 (2) was issued

Rajnish Srikishan Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to that extent as per ground number 2 of the appeal for both the years

ITA 1123/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1123/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 1124/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Rajnish Srikishan Gupta Vs. Ito 20(3)(1) A-3, Brindavan Housing Priamal Chamber Society Ltd., Lala 4Th Floor Jamnadas Gupta Marg Lalbaug Deonar, Mumbai-400088. Parel Mumbai-40 0012. Pan : Aabpg2210M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kirit Sanghvi Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

bogus bills from Bhagwati trading company of ₹ 3,567,407/– as per the information provided by the director general of income tax (investigation), notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 30/3/2017. The assessee reiterated its original return of income by letter dated ... assessee has obtained bogus invoices from Bhagwati trading company of ₹ 2,430,272. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act on 30/3/2017. The assessee on 4/4/2017 reiterated the original return. Therefore the notice under section 143 Page

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 103/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Narayanrao Jadhao ITA no.103/Nag./2024 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in reopening the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs.42

Jayantilal Sanghvi, Indore vs. ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/IND/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment in exercise of the power under section 147 of the Act, has been issued beyond

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

this information, the case was re-opened and assessment proceeding under section 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 were started and e-notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 28.03.2019 after recording reasons in writing and obtaining necessary approval from the prescribed authority. In response ... stated above that the appellant failed to disclose primary facts necessary for its assessment. Further reasons recorded by the AO for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act were not clear which primary facts were suppressed by the appellant. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sureshkumar Hansraj Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 45/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Sureshkumar Hansraj Shah Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 2/1, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Kikabhai Mansion, Chambers, Vs. Kika Street Gulalwadi Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 52/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sureshkumar Hansraj Shah Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 2/1, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Kikabhai Mansion, Chambers, Vs. Kika Street Gulalwadi Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

communicated that assessee has made purchase of ₹42,32,703/- from 8 different parties, who are involved in providing bogus purchase bills. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 3rd March, 2014 and the reasons were communicated. On 13th March, 2014, the assessee responded that original return ... filed may be treated as return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. Notice under Section 143(2) of the ITA No. 45/Mum/2024 & CO No. 52/Mum/2024 Suresh Kumar Hansraj Shah; A.Y. 2009-10 Act was issued on 15th July, 2014. The assessee was asked to prove

Virendra M. Gaur, Bhiwandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Narimanpoint, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Virendra M. Gaur Income Tax Officer, Room No. D-5, Ward 23(3)7, Bhagwan Seth Estate, 3Rd Floor, Behind Bata Godown, Vs. Nariman Point, Purna Village, Tal Bhiwandi, Mumbai-400 001 Bhiwandi, Mumbai-421302 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aplpg8799J Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija A/W Shri Virendra M. Gaur, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 44ASection 69A

impugned assessment year. Information is available in non-filers data that assessee has deposited ₹49,91,470/- in bank account in cash. Therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 13th March, 2019. Such notice remain unserved by postal authorities and therefore, same was served by affixture ... condoned the delay. 06. On the merits the assessee submitted that the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was not served to the assessee at all. The learned CIT (A) has held that the notice has been served

Angha Anand Warang, Badlapur West vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan West

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

ITA 266/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Angha Anand Warang 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, D-6, Warang Niwas Bunglow, Wayle Nagar, Near Bhagwati Hospital, Rameshwadi, Khadak Pada, Vs. Badlapur West, Kalyan West, Thane-421503 Thane 421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aizpa7610D Assessee By : Shri Anand Warang, Relative Of Assessee Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Anand Warang, Relative of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

savings bank account with Shamrao Vithal co-operative bank and Urban Co-operative Bank. Thus, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29th March, 2019. No response was received from assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) Angha Anand Warang; A.Y. 12-13 of the Act was also

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

disclosure / non-reporting of the impugned transaction and that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act in this regard to the assessee. The assessee filed its response stating that the impugned transaction has already been declared

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

record, in the return filed by the assessee the tax on sale of immoveable property was not paid or entered into. However, when notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, assessee himself attended the proceedings and thereafter paid the entire tax on the same date when the Vinod ... there was some omission on the part of the assessee to include the tax on the sale of property. However, when he received notice under section 148 of the Act, he was very eager to know what mistake has been committed by him and, therefore, he himself attended the hearing