11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT

242 ITR 381Supreme Court of India2000#3664 most cited

What is 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless the assessment proceedings based on a previously filed return have been terminated. Notice for reassessment cannot be issued while original assessment proceedings are pending.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT · 242 ITR 381 · Section 148 · Section 143(3) · Section 143(1) · reassessment notice · pending assessment · termination of assessment · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 237Section 249Section 11

Issues it is cited on

section 237section 139(4)section 139(5)kelvinatormere change of opinionsection 249income escaping assessmentescapement of incometax deducted at sourcesection 149change of opinionreason to believe

Judgments citing 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT

Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1730/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ssessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act and that the return of the assessee was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act only on 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated." 5.…

Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1729/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ssessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act and that the return of the assessee was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act only on 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated." 5.…

Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1728/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ssessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act and that the return of the assessee was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act only on 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated." 5.…

Price Waterhouse & Co., [Now Known As Price Waterhouse & Co. Chartered Accountants LLP], Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

…ssessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act and that the return of the assessee was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act only on 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : 16 Price Waterhouse & Co. (now known as Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants LLP) "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as ass…

Income Tax Officer 29(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Privi Associates LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Income Tax Officer 29(2)(5) Vs. M/S. Privi Associates Llp Mumbai Satguru Supreme, No.206, Income Tax Offices Mirani Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Valji Ladha Road Bandra-Kurla Complex Mulund (West) Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 080 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aalfp7516J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…O when the scrutiny assessment proceedings for the original return filed were pending before him. The law is now well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplementary Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 381 that when the proceeding is pending, the ld. AO could not have reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting him to reopen the assessment during the pendency of the scrutiny proceedings. The relevant operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “It is settled law that unless the return of inc…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Virender Kumar Bhatia

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

ITA/732/2019HC Delhi01 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…proceedings had been communicated to the assessee, it ought to have been held that notice issued u/s 158BD of the Act dated22/7/2007 was without jurisdiction held by Hon'ble Apex Court inc case of Trustees HHH, the Nizam Supplemental Family Trust Vs. CIT 242 ITR 381 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. KLM Royal Touch Airlines Vs. CIT 292 ITR 49. The Ld. AR contended that notice u/s 15880 of the Act was without jurisdiction since, the notice u/s 158BD dated 27/7/2007did not record any satisfaction as has been held by the Honble Delhi High Court in case of New Delhi Auto Finan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kakade Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 854/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri HarikrishanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, for initiation of re-assessment proceedings is invalid. In support of his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions. i) Trustees of H.E.H the Nizam’s Supplement Family Trust Vs. CIT, reported as 242 ITR 381 (SC) ii) Ador Technopack Ltd. Vs. Dr.Zakir Hussein, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported as 271 ITR 50 ( Bombay). 6.1 The ld. AR pointed that assessment order dated 28.03.2013 was passed in consequence of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. This fact is evident from the computation of total income wherein the Assessing Officer specifical…

Shri Gurucharan Singh, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

ITA 377/IND/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं./ I.T. A. No.377 & 378/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Gurucharan Singh V. Ito 3(1) Indore Marwah, Prp. M/S Janta Goods Transport, House No.11 P.N.B. Colony, Idgah Hills, Bhopal "था.ले.सं./Pan:Buzps8087D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Gurucharan Singh vs. ITO /ITA No.377 & 378/Ind/14 A.Y.07-08 Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर "ी सी.एम.गग","या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना,लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T. A. No.377 & 378/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Gurucharan Singh V. ITO 3(1) Indore Marwah, Prp. M/s Janta Goods Transport, House No.11 P.N.B. Colony, Idgah Hills, Bhopal "था.ले.सं./PAN:BUZPS8087D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None (written अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/A…

DCIT, Hassan vs. M/S Sujatha Narayan & Associates, Hassan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 71/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

…notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, notice issued u/s. 148 dated 16.5.2007 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Trustees of HEH the Nizam’s Supplementary Family Trust v. CIT, 242 ITR 381 (SC) (2) CIT v. Sambhudayal Dwarkadas, 218 ITR 123 (MP) (3) Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. ACIT, 266 ITR 664 (All) (4) CIT v. K.M. Pachayappan, 304 ITR 264 (Mad) (5) CIT v. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd., 308 ITR 249 (Mad) (6) Renuka Industries v. ITO in ITA No.187 of 2003, order dated 28.11.2007 (Karnataka High Court) (7) Super Spinning Mill…

M/S. Sujatha Narayanan & Associates, Hassan vs. ACIT, Hassan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 51/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

…notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, notice issued u/s. 148 dated 16.5.2007 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Trustees of HEH the Nizam’s Supplementary Family Trust v. CIT, 242 ITR 381 (SC) (2) CIT v. Sambhudayal Dwarkadas, 218 ITR 123 (MP) (3) Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. ACIT, 266 ITR 664 (All) (4) CIT v. K.M. Pachayappan, 304 ITR 264 (Mad) (5) CIT v. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd., 308 ITR 249 (Mad) (6) Renuka Industries v. ITO in ITA No.187 of 2003, order dated 28.11.2007 (Karnataka High Court) (7) Super Spinning Mill…

Surja Sekhar Ganguly, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 17(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri: Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) ITA Nos. 275 & 276 /Kol/2016 : A.Ys : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Surja Sekhar Ganguly Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o Shri S.N Ghosh & 17(3), Central Revenue Associates,Advocates, Seven Building, 169 AJC Bose Road, Brothers’Lodge, P.O Kolkata-700014. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist:Hooghly, Pin 712105. PAN: AGDPG0524E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri: Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.AR Department by: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 20-09-2016 Date of Pronouncement :-1…

I.T.O WD - 55(1), Kolkata vs. Dr. Dr Sudhir Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…are conflict order of various High Courts on the same issue favouring both Revenue and Assessee. However we find that the aforesaid issue is well settled by the judgmente of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust Vs. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC) deciding the issue in favour of assessee by holding as under : ITA No.2330/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO Wd-55(1) Kol. v. Dr. Sudhir Kr. Ghosh Page 5 “It is well settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under section 148 cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated…