What is 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. authority for?

Reassessment under Section 147 is not permissible solely on a mere change of opinion or a reconsideration of the same material. The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment if the initial grounds for believing income has escaped assessment are subsequently found to be incorrect or non-existent.

How many judgments cite 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co.?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. (82 ITR 831), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 10(38).

35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. (82 ITR 831)

PURNAGIRI RICE MILLS,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…g incorrect assessment year had been duly explained before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bankipur Club Ltd vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) to buttress the contention that in the absence of any new material, the assessment could not have been re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue opposed th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

…t such is the position, the ITO does not get the jurisdiction\nto make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court\ndecisions in CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club\nLtd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC). Similar view has been\ntaken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984)\n43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj)., On behalf of the Revenue, CIT\nvs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui)\n214 : (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Gui), a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited.\nOn a cons…

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

…e ITO's jurisdictions is ousted the moment this situation comes to his knowledge." It was further held in the said case that - "Following the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831, in the instant case the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, the moment he found the two grounds mentioned in the reassessment notice incorrect or non-existent (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment made by the ITO." 11. It is well settled that the reopening of asse…

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…nsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC)(SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 35. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Supreme Court specifically dealt with propositions (2) and (4) quoted in paragraph 3…

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…rned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Punjab & Haryana\nHigh Court, in CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H), which in turn is based on\nthe judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245:\n(1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) as well, apart from the fact, that it does consider various judgments also.\nAccordingly, it is contended by learned counsel for the assessee, that the impugned order\ndoesn't require any interference.\n\n9. We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the judgments cited at the Bar,\nso also the impugned judgment of the learned…

AMROS ENGINEERING PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 823/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 134A

…Our aforesaid view is supported by the following decision of jurisdictional ITAT Jaipur in the matter of AVG Construction P Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA No. 90/JP/2020)wherein the court relied on the decision of 1.Hon’ble supreme court (Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC)) 2. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ram Singh (Raj-HC)2008, 306 ITR 343 3. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jet airways (I.) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2.6 On the other hand ld DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. It was submitt…