← All Phrases

“Section 147(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 147Section 147(2)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 147(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 147(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

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.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

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.

Judgments citing Section 147(2)

Rajulhoubienuo Angami, Nagaland vs. ITO Ward 2, Dimapur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

furnished under Section 139. In the context of the assessment under Section 147 courts have taken the view that notice under Section 147(2) is required to be issued to the assessee. See in this connection, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Alpine Electronics Asia

Shilpa Manish Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(3), Navi Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3089/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

mentioned that the original return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and therefore, provisions of Section 147(2)(b) are applicable to the facts of this case. 5. On perusal of the paper book, we find that the observations of the AO are factually incorrect

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3593/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3591/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3589/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3469/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3468/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3467/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3466/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 69C

completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order. The AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

Sarthak Securities Co. P, Ltd. v ITO (2010) 32$UR 110 Delhi 2. 6, that the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147(2) do not disclose the basis. The proceedings have 15 been initiated on the ground of information received from the investigation wing but me order