← All Phrases

“protective assessment”

MiscellaneousAssessmentAssessment441 judgments

The decision most relied on for protective assessment is Lalji Haridas v. ITO (43 ITR 387), cited in 238 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on protective assessment

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
178 ITR 451 · 1989 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT
39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

Judgments citing protective assessment

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Gauri Madan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1828/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Behl, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

DCIT Vs. M/s. Nalimbur Suppliers (Pvt) Ltd (supra) we note that under almost identical situation it was held that it is well settled that protective assessment is permissible in law and in case of a doubt or ambiguity about real entity in whose hands a particular income ... assessed, the assessing authority is entitled to have recourse to make a protective assessment. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT vs. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi (supra) directed the Tribunal keeping it alive and pending awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court till

Shri Arvind Navrang Singh, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 385/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsa No.124/M/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.385/M/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Arvind Navrang Asst. Commissioner Of Singh, Income Tax, 1503, 1504 Thakur Jewel, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Thakur Village, Vs. 120 Ft. Road, Asher It Park, Kandivali (East), Road No.16Z, Mumbai – 400 101 Wagle Indl. Estate, Pan: Agtps2026B Thane (W)-400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Arvind Navrang Asst. Commissioner Of Singh, Income Tax, 1503, 1504 Thakur Jewel, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Thakur Village, Vs. 120 Ft. Road, Asher It Park, Kandivali (East), Road No.16Z, Mumbai – 400 101 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Agtps2026B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

assessments in respect of same income where the AO had made substantive addition in case of certain person, he could not make protective assessment of the same addition in the hands of the assessee and the same is unsustainable in law”. 10. Moreover, in the face of the undisputed fact ... Income Tax (2007) 108 ITD 545 (Mum), 2008 298 ITR 113 (Mum) while deciding the identical issue also observed that the right to make protective assessment is given to the ITO but not to the appellate authorities. So when the substantive addition is already made in the hands

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lipi Finstock Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3608/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 245CSection 68

fact that the addition was confirmed in the hands of other Assessees and not on the assessee here in by the settlement Commission, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee does not survive. 10. In so far as addition of Rs. 24,27,44,823/- on substantive

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 454/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

underline genesis is application of BLT and determination of excessive AMP expenses and consequently making transfer pricing adjustment. Though the TPO has made protective assessment using BLT, but at the same time has proceeded to make substantive adjustment in his own version of profit split method (PSM). While applying

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 890/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

underline genesis is application of BLT and determination of excessive AMP expenses and consequently making transfer pricing adjustment. Though the TPO has made protective assessment using BLT, but at the same time has proceeded to make substantive adjustment in his own version of profit split method (PSM). While applying

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

underline genesis is application of BLT and determination of excessive AMP expenses and consequently making transfer pricing adjustment. Though the TPO has made protective assessment using BLT, but at the same time has proceeded to make substantive adjustment in his own version of profit split method (PSM). While applying

Shri Hira Lal Kadlabju, Ghaziabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 28/ASR/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 May 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 69A

during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later, the son in law retracted from his statement and submitted that Rs.26 ... find that the issue is not yet mature for determination of the ownership of the cash in both the assessee. The substantive assessment and protective assessment both are still alive for determination. Both the ld. Ars has filed new documents before the bench which is not yet verified

Sh. Anish Bhan, Jammu vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 May 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 69A

during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later, the son in law retracted from his statement and submitted that Rs.26 ... find that the issue is not yet mature for determination of the ownership of the cash in both the assessee. The substantive assessment and protective assessment both are still alive for determination. Both the ld. Ars has filed new documents before the bench which is not yet verified

Keshnath Sahu, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

ITA 135/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshnath Sahu Shri Balaji Construction Company, Near Power House, Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari (C.G)-493 773 Pan : Cqips0706B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69

that as per the settled position of law proceedings u/s.147 of the Act could not be initiated for framing of a protective assessment. Elaborating on the reasons to support his said contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act presupposes ... look into the sustainability of the contention of the Ld. AR that proceedings u/s.147 of the Act cannot be initiated for framing of a protective assessment. 13. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

then possibly the assessment or the proceedings may get time barred. Therefore, to avoid such eventualities, the revenue has authority and right to make protective assessment as well as substantive assessment in another case, however, with the rider that ultimately and finally, the income/transaction/addition, if at all would ... ITAT Delhi in the case of G.K. Consultants Limited, ITA No.1502/Del/2013, order dated 27.06.2014 held that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 85/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 83/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shr Rajesh Tiwari, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 81/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 143/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 141/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 140/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 139/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rajan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenral Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 138/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rjan Batra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

order of the ITAT-Amritsar Bench the assessment orders of substantive assessment are quashed, in reference of above discussion. Accordingly, the protective assessment was made in case of assessee is duly quashed. 19. In the result, the ITA No. 81 to 83/Asr/2022 & 85/Asr/2022 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open