← 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

M/S. R.K. Arora & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessees’ Appeal No

ITA 4444/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhiranjan Senpati, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

assessee vide letter dated NIL has submitted on 2.5.2011 a copy of return of income and also requested for the copy of the reasons recorded before initiating the reassessment proceedings. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 17.10.2011 and served upon the assessee through ... served upon him through speed post. In response thereto, the assessee on 11.11.2011 has filed a letter and requested for copy of reasons recorded before initiating the proceeding u/s. 148 for the AY 2004- 05. The same was sent to the assessee on 8.12.2011 and assessee submitted vide his letter

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1212/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

asst. year 2009-10, the case was taken for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 2.3 The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were given to the assessee ... merely based on suspicion and surmises and not based on factual foundation. e. The assumption of jurisdiction is further bad in law as the reasons recorded are mere reason to suspect and not reason to believe on the facts of the case. f. The mandatory condition for reopening is escapement

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1209/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

asst. year 2009-10, the case was taken for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 2.3 The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were given to the assessee ... merely based on suspicion and surmises and not based on factual foundation. e. The assumption of jurisdiction is further bad in law as the reasons recorded are mere reason to suspect and not reason to believe on the facts of the case. f. The mandatory condition for reopening is escapement

M/S. Goodluck Commercial Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3365/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

Bench of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No. 915/Del/2017 for the AY 2000-01; copy of reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act; copy of submissions dated 28.12.2012 before the Ld. CIT(A) together with enclosures thereof; copy of submissions dated 1.3.2014 before ... Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to page-29 of the paper book which is reasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that all entries are taken in the bank account of the assessee. Copies

M/S. Goodluck Commercial Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3364/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

Bench of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No. 915/Del/2017 for the AY 2000-01; copy of reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act; copy of submissions dated 28.12.2012 before the Ld. CIT(A) together with enclosures thereof; copy of submissions dated 1.3.2014 before ... Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to page-29 of the paper book which is reasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that all entries are taken in the bank account of the assessee. Copies

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Smcc Construction India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4451/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S.Sidhu, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4451/Del./2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Smcc Construction India Ltd. Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, 23, Local Shopping Centre, C.R. Building Madangir, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7822P Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : Sh. Vikrant Suri, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015 Order Per O.P.Kant, A.M. This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th May, 2012 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Xii, New Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue In Its Solitary Ground Has Raised That The Quashing Of Assessment Order By The Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) By Recording A Perverse Finding That The Earlier Assessing Officer Has Applied Mind To The Royalty Expenses Being Revenue In Nature, Was Not Justified. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is A Joint Venture Between Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd, Japan & M/S Kairali Construction, India & Was Engaged In Providing Engineering 2

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, SR. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vikrant Suri, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40

record by the ld. AO, which can form a reason to believe that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment therefore the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer was a mere change of opinion only. He, further, relied on the various judgments and decisions already submitted before ... assessment the ld AO deemed to have applied his mind and he did not choose to make any addition on the issue. In the ‘reason recorded’ the ld AO has not mentioned as to what is the material or information which has come to his possession or to the notice

Raj Kumar Mangla, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 558/DEL/2011[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri C.M.Garg

For Appellant: Sh.Raj Kumar ManglaFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 124(4)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

order was patently arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio and the same ought to have been cancelled/annulled by the Id. CIT (A). 6. That the reasons recorded by the Id. ACIT (Inv. Circle), Gurgaon before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act clearly show that

Commissioner of Income Tax – II vs. Co. Ltd

ITA/356/2013HC Delhi22 Sept 2015
For Appellant: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Ved Jain and Mr Pranjal Srivastava
Section 115JSection 147Section 260ASection 68

assessment was not based on any fresh material but material disclosed by the Assessee during the initial assessment. The Tribunal also observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment did not contain any allegation that there was any failure on the part of the Assessee ... available with the AO at the time of initial assessment. He also pointed out that the observation of the Tribunal that the reasons recorded by the AO did not contain the allegation that there was a failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose all material facts, was factually

Dr Papiya Dutta, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 671/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment and also perused the material available on record. As submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee by referring to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer to examine or verify the particulars furnished by the assessee ... order to appreciate the stand of the ld. counsel for the assessee on this issue, it is pertinent to refer to the reasons recorded by the I.T.A. No. 671/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 4 of 6 Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, which are extracted below:- “From

Oriental Insurance Company

The appeal is allowed

ITA/174/2013HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
For Appellant: Mr M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with MrFor Respondent: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 260A

174/2013 Page 8 of 26 and rejected the appeal. 4. Before the Tribunal, it was conceded by the Revenue that the reasons recorded by the AO for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act were erroneous. Concededly, the profit and loss on sale of investments had been credited ... belief should be rational, coherent and not ex facie incorrect and contrary to what is on record.” 10. In the present case, the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act are quoted as under:- “Under the prescribed statutory provisions only the profits

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

received by the assessee. However, without prejudice to the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the copy of information mentioned in the reason recorded as received from ADIT (Investigation Unit), VI(1) may please be supplied to us so that reply may be filed. It is further submitted that ... assessee and therefore there is no question of any explanation from the assessee. Assessee never did any money lending as alleged in the reason recorded. Therefore, the reopening of the present assessment is with great respect unjustified. The assessee has already declined to have any knowledge as well as recovery

Nous Enterprises Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

COP/109/2015HC Karnataka11 Sept 2015

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 36

counsel for the assessee to condone such long delay of more than 2500 days, delay is condoned but as the main appeal as per reasons recorded by us is meritless, the same is dismissed.” 3. The present appeal is of subsequent Assessment Year 2008-2009 and there being no other

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/93/2012HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 260A

24th November 2006 for AYs 2001- 02 to 2004-05. The reasons for re-opening, as recorded in the notice, were identical to the reasons recorded on 22nd September 2005. The fresh notices were served on the Assessee on 5th December 2006 for the said four AYs. The assessment

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/92/2012HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 260A

24th November 2006 for AYs 2001- 02 to 2004-05. The reasons for re-opening, as recorded in the notice, were identical to the reasons recorded on 22nd September 2005. The fresh notices were served on the Assessee on 5th December 2006 for the said four AYs. The assessment

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Himachal Joint Venture

ITA/219/2015HC Karnataka01 Sept 2015

Bench: The Appellate

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 146Section 148Section 4

against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14671/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order has directed the petitioner to approach before the Appellate 3 Authority within two months as per the provisions of Section ... decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14.08.2015 in W.A.No.218/2015, whereby the Division Bench of this Court, for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the appeal and he prays that similar order may be passed by this Court. 7. Whereas Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel appearing

Sri C M Mahadeva S/O Sri Manche Gowda vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/795/2009HC Karnataka24 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 255(6)Section 260Section 69

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Tribunal was right in foreclosing consideration of the actual reasons recorded by the AO, instead of exercising its power under Section 255(6), as the reasons recorded go to the root of jurisdiction?”. 4. We have ... learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue has 7 submitted that, in the facts of the present case, reading of the first paragraph of the reasons recorded on 15.09.2006, along with its second and third paragraphs, would make it clear that there was a vast gap between the income

The Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt Ltd

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

ITA/65/2014HC Karnataka14 Aug 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 260

from the export turnover on the ground it was expenditure incurred in foreign exchange for providing technical services outside India and in the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, he has taken the view that aforesaid amount cannot be considered as income derived from 10 export of articles ... assessee before the Assessing Officer, Appellate Commissioner 13 as well as Tribunal. Perusal of the original records would indicate that Assessing Officer for the reasons recorded in the order sheet dated 05.09.2006 to reopen the concluded assessment for the year 2003- 04. It reads as under: “The expenses incurred

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-09 vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/415/2015HC Delhi10 Aug 2015
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

dated 28th December 2006, the AO recorded that “since the Assessee did not raise any objection to the proposed reassessment after having conveyed the reasons recorded under Section 148 of the Act, there is no need to dispose of the same prior to reassessment.” 5. Apparently, the Assessee did raise ... belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In doing so, it is further open to the assessee to challenge the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) on the ground that they do not meet the standards set in the various judicial pronouncements.” 18. It may be noticed

Shri S L Basavaraj (HUF) vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand allowed

ITA/336/2009HC Karnataka07 Aug 2015

Bench: The Tribunal. By A Common Order Dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Revenue. Aggrieved

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260

reopening the assessment for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, was furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, but the actual reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of notice dated 21.10.2005 were not furnished to the assessee. The relevant extract of synopsis of reasons

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Video Electronics

ITA/175/2014HC Delhi03 Aug 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 163-A(3), but it failed to do so for 19 years in spite of repeated observations of this Court. For the reasons recorded above, we deem it proper to issue specific directions to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to make proper