← All Phrases

“true and full disclosure”

Settlement & AmnestySection 245CSection 245C198 judgments

The decision most relied on for true and full disclosure is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), cited in 439 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on true and full disclosure

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO
41 ITR 191 · 1961 · Supreme Court
384
citing judgments

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT
308 ITR 195 · 2009 · High Court
175
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment when all material facts were already before the AO during the original assessment, even if the AO failed to apply their mind at that time. Such an action constitutes an impermissible review of a concluded assessment rather than a reassessment based on fresh tangible material.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT
398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court
137
citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

Judgments citing true and full disclosure

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-291)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has made true and full disclosure of all the facts before the AO and hence there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR further submitted that

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7429/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

escaped assessment in the previous year, on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts during the proceedings of the concluded assessment. In this background, the Supreme Court observed:- "The judgment in Burlop Dealers' case cannot ... reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7428/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

escaped assessment in the previous year, on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts during the proceedings of the concluded assessment. In this background, the Supreme Court observed:- "The judgment in Burlop Dealers' case cannot ... reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

escaped assessment in the previous year, on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts during the proceedings of the concluded assessment. In this background, the Supreme Court observed:- "The judgment in Burlop Dealers' case cannot ... reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable

Asha Viren Raj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner that the Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional

Graceunited Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2049/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner that the Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional

Graceunited Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumba

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

ITA 2048/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner that the Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Thirdly, the appellant has objected to reassessment after four years from the relevant assessment year on ground that it has already made true and full disclosure of the information necessary for assessment in the assessment proceedings concluded u/s 143(3). The appellant submitted that the assessment was completed

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Thirdly, the appellant has objected to reassessment after four years from the relevant assessment year on ground that it has already made true and full disclosure of the information necessary for assessment in the assessment proceedings concluded u/s 143(3). The appellant submitted that the assessment was completed

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Thirdly, the appellant has objected to reassessment after four years from the relevant assessment year on ground that it has already made true and full disclosure of the information necessary for assessment in the assessment proceedings concluded u/s 143(3). The appellant submitted that the assessment was completed

The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Bank Limited, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thanjavur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/CHNY/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1783/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Income Tax Officer, Bank Ltd., V. Ward (1), No 1120, East Main Street, Thanjavur. Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613001. [Pan: Aacft-3931-D] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappan, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43D

passed on 21.12.2010 making certain additions (not the present disputed one) to the returned income. During assessment and reassessment the assessee has made true and full disclosure to the assessing officer. Without provoking events or any fresh information, the AO has issued a Notice under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 148

25/LKW/2023 Page 27 of 61 Lordships held that the duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that his duty ends. It is for the Income-tax Officer to draw the correct inference from

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, we upheld the

ITA 1458/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194ASection 36Section 40

case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law in holding that re-appreciation of material already available on record amounts to true and full disclosure within the meaning Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Income

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 6. FINDINGS OF THE AO ON TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 147: As the assessee had not disclosed full and truly all material facts necessary

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order to confer jurisdiction on the Income Tax Officer. Supreme Court observed that duty is cast upon the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the Income Tax Officer the books of accounts or other evidence ... necessarily amount to disclosure contemplated by law but the duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that, his duty ends. It is for the Income Tax Officer to draw the correct inference from

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction and in such event, mere disclosure of the transaction cannot be said to be true and full disclosure and the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment The Apex Court in the case of Phul Ghand Bajrang

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction and in such event, mere disclosure of the transaction cannot be said to be true and full disclosure and the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment The Apex Court in the case of Phul Ghand Bajrang

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

stone business in the absence of documentary evidences. The PCIT has claimed that the agricultural income disclosed by the applicants is not a true and full disclosure and the entire scheme of earning such income is a sham and after thought. 8.3 The applicants in their replies submitted that they