← All Phrases

“reasons recorded”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 14813,127 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasons recorded is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasons recorded

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.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material, and if the sanction under section 151 is accorded mechanically, indicating non-application of mind.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.
300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

The requirement of statutory prior approval by a high-ranking authority, even if administrative, serves as an in-built protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. While such approval need not record elaborate reasoning, the approving authority has a heavy duty to ensure it is not an empty ritual, fulfilling its purpose of supervisory control.

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.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court
225
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court
217
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

Judgments citing reasons recorded

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Gennex Cresa Partners Consultants P.L Td, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4480/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 3853 To 3855/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ M/S. Gennex Cresa The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), Partners Consultants Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 4480 To 4482/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), M/S. Gennex Cresa Partners Aayakar Bhavan, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 6878K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :04.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :04 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(1)Section 148

Counsel for the assessee stated that in all the appeals by the assessee the additions made u/s. 148 have been challenged qua the reasons recorded for reopening. As this issue goes to the root of all the assessment under consideration, we proceed by deciding this issue first. 3. The grievance ... erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. Inspite of the fact that no additions were made for reasons recorded for reopening u/s. 148 & erred in not following Jurisdictional High Court’s & other High Courts decision.” 4. It was further agreed by the representatives of both sides that

Gennex Cresa Partners Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3853/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 3853 To 3855/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ M/S. Gennex Cresa The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), Partners Consultants Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 4480 To 4482/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), M/S. Gennex Cresa Partners Aayakar Bhavan, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 6878K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :04.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :04 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(1)Section 148

Counsel for the assessee stated that in all the appeals by the assessee the additions made u/s. 148 have been challenged qua the reasons recorded for reopening. As this issue goes to the root of all the assessment under consideration, we proceed by deciding this issue first. 3. The grievance ... erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. Inspite of the fact that no additions were made for reasons recorded for reopening u/s. 148 & erred in not following Jurisdictional High Court’s & other High Courts decision.” 4. It was further agreed by the representatives of both sides that

M/S Seaward Developers (P) Ltd., Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 7(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2583/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2583/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer C/O., Sajid Murghey,7/14,Bushra Park Ward-7(2)(2)Aayakar Bhavan 52-Bunglow Area,Panvel-410 206 Vs Maharshi Karve Marg Pan:Aaics 4655 E Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2545/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 Income Tax Officer M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Ward-7(2)(2), Mumbai. Vs Panvel-410 206. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A.K. Sharma-Ar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey & Aarsi Prasad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Of Cit(A)-13, Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Have Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S).

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sharma-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey and Aarsi Prasad (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

that details like development agreement, valuation of work in progress,expenditure incurred were made available to the AO, that the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening of the assessment were not sufficient for invoking the provisions of section 147,that the re-opening was bad in law. After

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gold Mohur Profiles Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4102/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Aby T. Varkey & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Gold Mohur Profiles Ltd., Ward-12(2), Room No. 337, 31, Gujaranwala Town-Ii, C.R. Building, New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacg2316G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.04.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Xv, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ii. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act Despite The Settled Position Of Law That The Onus Was On The Assessee To Establish The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transaction Which Assessee Had Failed To Do. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act, Disregarding The Finding Of The Department That The Assessee Has Introduced Its Own Unaccounted Money In Its Bank As Accommodation Entries.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/sh. K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

return of income filed as return filed against the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer provided a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening through letter dated 19.08.2011. The reasons recorded are reproduced as under: “As per information received from the officer ... letter on 09.12.2011 enclosing photocopies of confirmation letter, balance sheet etc. of seven share applicants including the five share applicants mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. It was contended by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that all those persons are the persons of means, having