← All Phrases

“Section 147(2)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 147Section 147(2)(c)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 147(2)(c) is Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (434 ITR 1), cited in 672 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 147(2)(c)

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.
443 ITR 267 · 2022 · High Court
220
citing judgments

Section 234E fee cannot be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This applies even when the processing of the return under Section 200A(c) occurred before that date.

Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT
123 ITR 457 · 1980 · Supreme Court
202
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings recorded in assessment proceedings are relevant but not conclusive for penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Silver Line
383 ITR 455 · 2016 · High Court
201
citing judgments

For reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must record reasons and communicate them to the assessee. An assessee's participation in proceedings pursuant to a Section 148 notice does not obviate the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons or issuing a Section 143(2) notice.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

CIT v. S C Kothari
82 ITR 794 · 1971 · Supreme Court
111
citing judgments

Income tax is levied on the real profit of a trade or business, not on gross receipts. Even for unaccounted transactions, only the profit component, after deducting legitimate expenses and cost of goods sold, can be brought to tax as undisclosed income.

2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri
33 Taxmann.com 281 · 2013 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.

Katira Constructions Limited v. Union of India and Others
352 ITR 513 · 2013 · High Court
70
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.

Judgments citing Section 147(2)(c)

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons

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

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 on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons