What is Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

For the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a), it is essential to have 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on relevant material. The AO's subjective satisfaction and the final outcome of the proceedings are not relevant at the initiation stage.

How many judgments cite Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO?

200 judgments on BharatTax cite Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO (191 ITR 662), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 133(6).

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO (191 ITR 662)

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1331/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of e…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1330/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of e…

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of e…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…Maji & Co. v/s CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another v/s ITO & Anr. (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v/s ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 Apart from above facts emerging in this case, there are various case laws which support reopening of assessment on similar facts Same of there are being quoted below for ready reference: - ITO vs Purshottam Das Bangur 90 Taxmann.com 541 (SC) - wherein it was propounded by Hon’ble SC that information contained in letter of Directorate of Investiga…

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7952/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of e…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Arshia Global Tradecom Private Limited

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

ITAT/175/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

…ted Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 11 the said decision is wholly distinguishable on facts as the core issue 8 (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) 9 (2021) 130 Taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat) 10 (1991) 191 ITR 662 11 (2021) 133 Taxmann.com 315 (Madras) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 13 of 16 was whether reopening of the assessment on the ground that there was no investment in shares by the assessee therein and the income earned by it from sale of shares had to be treated as business income and not as capital gains and while considering the said issue, th…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…l evidence or conclusion. The function of the Ld.AO is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Central Manganese Ore Co.Ltd. Vs.ITO reported in (1991) 191 ITR 662, observed that, for initiation of action under section /471-ara-.it stood at the relevant time}, fulfillment of two requisite conditions in that regard is essential as at that stage the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. 5.4. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is `reason to believe', but not the established f…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…l evidence or conclusion. The function of the Ld.AO is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Central Manganese Ore Co.Ltd. Vs.ITO reported in (1991) 191 ITR 662, observed that, for initiation of action under section /471-ara-.it stood at the relevant time}, fulfillment of two requisite conditions in that regard is essential as at that stage the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. 5.4. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is `reason to believe', but not the established f…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…l evidence or conclusion. The function of the Ld.AO is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Central Manganese Ore Co.Ltd. Vs.ITO reported in (1991) 191 ITR 662, observed that, for initiation of action under section /471-ara-.it stood at the relevant time}, fulfillment of two requisite conditions in that regard is essential as at that stage the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. 5.4. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is `reason to believe', but not the established f…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…l evidence or conclusion. The function of the Ld.AO is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Central Manganese Ore Co.Ltd. Vs.ITO reported in (1991) 191 ITR 662, observed that, for initiation of action under section /471-ara-.it stood at the relevant time}, fulfillment of two requisite conditions in that regard is essential as at that stage the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. 5.4. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is `reason to believe', but not the established f…

Shri Baljinder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 148/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69A

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believ…

Shrimati Manjit Kaur, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 147/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69A

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believ…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea offairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [19917 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe". but not the established fleet of…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea offairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [19917 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe". but not the established fleet of…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…r conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [19917 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe". but not the established fleet of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…conclusion. The function of the "Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is 'reason to believe', but not the established fact of…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…son recorded on that basis, i.e., as being a genuine reason, held bona fide. The said Ground is thus a valid ground for reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact, in our view, the provision for overdue interest disallowed in assessment (Rs.262.57 lacs), that may finally stand to be justified, as also explained hereinabove, is only toward the extra (additional) provision in its respect, i.e., to the extent the interest forms part of the borrowers’ principal balance and, thus, as provision th…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…son recorded on that basis, i.e., as being a genuine reason, held bona fide. The said Ground is thus a valid ground for reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact, in our view, the provision for overdue interest disallowed in assessment (Rs.262.57 lacs), that may finally stand to be justified, as also explained hereinabove, is only toward the extra (additional) provision in its respect, i.e., to the extent the interest forms part of the borrowers’ principal balance and, thus, as provision th…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…son recorded on that basis, i.e., as being a genuine reason, held bona fide. The said Ground is thus a valid ground for reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact, in our view, the provision for overdue interest disallowed in assessment (Rs.262.57 lacs), that may finally stand to be justified, as also explained hereinabove, is only toward the extra (additional) provision in its respect, i.e., to the extent the interest forms part of the borrowers’ principal balance and, thus, as provision th…

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1st Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AHAPN9475D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is fi…

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO

What is Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Arshia Global Tradecom Private Limited

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

Shri Baljinder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bathinda

Shrimati Manjit Kaur, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Bathinda

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore