← 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

Srenik Singhvi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 54, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1203/KOL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee on the preliminary issue raised in this appeal challenging the validity of reopening of assessment, it is relevant to refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening, which are extracted below:- “Now, on verification of record and the TDS certificates filed with the return ... amount of Rs.4,15,794.00 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. A perusal of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer makes it abundantly clear that the reason for reopening the assessment as given by the Assessing Officer was that

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Sri. Pramod H. Lele, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeals are dismissed

ITA 5581/MUM/2004[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5581/Mum/2004 & 3691/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. Cit, Room No. 447, Pramod H. Lele, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 5/7, Chandrashekhar Co-Op Soc., Mumbi-400 020 Swami Nityanand Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapl 6012 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Bare ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.07.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Arising Out Of Separate Orders, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2002-03 & 2004-05. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Taxability Of The Gain On The Transfer Of Sweat Equity Shares During The Relevant Previous Years Allotted To The Assessee. While The Revenue Seeks To Bring The Entire Gain To Tax As Short-Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh BareFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 56

incidents, when the right, a capital asset, vests in the assessee. 5. For the reasons stated in this order, as well as the separate reasons recorded by the tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1998-99 dated 10.8.2011 (supra), we 7 ITA Nos. 5581/M/04 & 3691/M/05 (A.Ys

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Tarun International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5136/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 5136/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Tarun International Ltd., Tax, Circle-16(1), 5037, Excelsior Cinema, New Delhi Street Sirikiwalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact2713N Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commission is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from ... relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section

Wilful Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2584/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Wilful Finance & Investment Vs. Dcit, Circle 18(1), Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi K-7B, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan : Aaacw0280H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dureja, Adv. Department By : Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dureja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

completed uls 143(3)/147 on 31-3-2013. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee 3 was supplied copy of the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s 148. As per section 147 of the Act, an assessing officer can assess or reassess the income of any assessment ... reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year. On perusal of the copy of the reasons recorded it is noticed that no such belief as to escapement of income has been arrived at by the AO. We had challenged the impugned assessment

M/S. Paramount Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6135/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Gurmeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 68

counsel for the assessee, Shri Gurmeet Singh submitted that the reopening is bad in law for the reason that: a) The reasons recorded are vague and the name of the entry operator has not been specified; b) There is no independent application of mind by the AO which is evident ... from the reasons recorded; c) There is no tangible material; and d) Notice has been issued based on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. 4. He relied on the following case laws:- i) 85CCH 040 (Delhi High Court

Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 328/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.328/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Wipro Ge Healthcare Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd.) Plot Nos.3, 3A & 4, Kadugodi Indl. Area, Bangalore-560 067 Pan Aaacg 7655G Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.) A. No.224/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit-I (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 9.9.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals By Revenue & The Assessee, Preferred Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dt.30.12.2014 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Pursuance To The Directions Dt.28.11.2014 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

courts more particularly on the issue of reference, sanction of approval, recording of reasons and lack of satisfaction. 22. That no copy of the reasons recorded for making the reference to the TPO has been furnished nor copy of the approval obtained for making the reference has been furnished

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/585/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/586/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/580/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/581/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/578/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/579/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/587/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/588/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee asked for a certified copy of the reasons recorded and noted that the return was being filed „under protest‟. Thereafter the AO on 14th November 2011 issued a notice to the Assessee under

Jai Glass Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 2206/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri N.B.GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

other words, in case where the proceedings are already initiated u/s 147 of the Act, then in respect of the items stated in the reasons recorded, it would not be necessary to record any further reasons contemplated in section 148(2) but in respect of the items which come

DCIT Cir 22(1), Mumbai vs. Jai Glass Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 1518/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri N.B.GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

other words, in case where the proceedings are already initiated u/s 147 of the Act, then in respect of the items stated in the reasons recorded, it would not be necessary to record any further reasons contemplated in section 148(2) but in respect of the items which come

Jai Glass Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 982/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri N.B.GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

other words, in case where the proceedings are already initiated u/s 147 of the Act, then in respect of the items stated in the reasons recorded, it would not be necessary to record any further reasons contemplated in section 148(2) but in respect of the items which come

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vip Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5412/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S. Vip Industries Ltd., Tax-7(3), Dgp House, 88-C, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Old Prabhadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 025 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacv 0177G Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhinay Kanbhar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kanbhar, D.R
Section 115W

section 115WG of the Act by issuing notice under section 115WH of the Act. 3. We may mention here that the copy of the reasons recorded is placed at page 11 of the paper book. A perusal of the same reveals that the AO has not put any date ... said document and therefore the reasons recorded are undated. Further, a perusal of the assessment order decided by the AO under section 115WE(3) read with section 115WH of the Act reveals that it has been mentioned therein that the original assessment was completed under section 115WE(3) vide order

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3386/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 195Section 200Section 40

fact that in not properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer in reasons recorded for reopening the Assessment. 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact that deleting the disallowance amounting of Rs.7 ... assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to his assessment. In the present case, on a perusal of the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, which has been reproduced in the assessment order, it is seen that re-opening is for assessing the amount

DDIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7375/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.7375/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004–05) Asstt. Director Of Income Tax–I(1) …….………. अऩीरधथी / Room No.504, Piramal Chambers Appellant 5Th Floor, Parel, Mumbai V/S Matunga Gymkhana ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Lakhamsey Napoo Road Matunga, Mumbai 400 018 Respondent Pan – Aaatm1035F यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Maurya Pratap ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 07.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Maurya Pratap
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147

failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to his assessment. On a perusal of the reasons recorded for re–opening, we do not find any such allegation made by the Assessing Officer which satisfies the condition of proviso to section