CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 2. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO (SC)

133 ITD 79Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#14850 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 143(1)section 148section 147companyindianfactotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 2. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO (SC)

Vithal Leasefin(P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle Ward 1(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7745/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…whatever reason has reason to believe that, income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment assessment..... Reliance can also be placed on the decision in the cases of ACIT Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT), Chennai-TM) 133 ITD 79 and M/S Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs./ ITO(Delhi) 341 ITR 135, it is held that "What is necessary to reopen an assessment is not final verdict but a prima facie reason Once such a reason is recorded by the assessing authority he assumes jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148". Hence, on the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer…

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

…s not final verdict but a prima facie reason and once such a reason is recorded by assessing authority he assumes jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 as has been in judicial pronouncements as under: 1. ACITVs Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 133 ITD 79 2 Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135 e. It may be appreciated that Notice u/s 148 can be issued on the basis of information in a non-est return Non-est return is not a bar to issue notice u/s 148 as has been held in the case of Rajasthan State Handloom Dev. Corpn, Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Jp) 64 ITD 356. f. It is well settled…

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

…t of income. The reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements - 5 1. Sri Krishna (P) ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 2. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 3. ACIT Vs Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai- TM) 133 ITD 79 4. Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135 5. In the impugned case, the Assessing Officer has recorded its prime facie reason Stating that it was not known whether the assessee had written back the interest which was claimed in earlier years. Subsequently, such interest was added to the total income of the assessee as the asse…

Sumati Kumar Lunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 457/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia Vs. I.T.O Ward 36(4), Kolkata Pan: Aavpl 7736 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…ct that for earlier assessment years issue in dispute has been decided by CIT(A) in assessee's favour cannot be a fetter in exercising his jurisdiction vis 147. This ratio emerges from the judgments in ACIT Vs Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 133 ITD 79 &Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135. 3 4 A.Y 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia 6. I also find that in the case at hand the earlier assessment was completed without the AO recording any" specific opinion" or finding about the matters which led to the subsequent reopening, namely the issue relating to the impugned declaration un…

ITO, Tuticorin vs. N.Rajasekaran, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 1446/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 203A

…artmental Representative was that reopening was not done due to any change of opinion but only based on tangible material which was with the ld. Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed on the decision of Co-ordinate ITA No. 1446/Mds/2016. :- 10 -: (2011) 133 ITD 79 and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 247 ITR 818. 12. Ld. Authorised Representative, in reply, submitted that ld. Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings verified the books of accounts and made an assessment making disallowances wherever he found it necessary. T…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…cements that what is necessary to re-open an assessment is not final verdict but a prima facie reason. Once such a reason is recorded by assessing authority, he assumes jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 - ACIT vs. Tube Investment of Income Ltd. (ITAT Chennai TM) 133 ITD 79; Rajat Export Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135. As regards information for re-opening, it has been held in KalyanjiMavji & Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287, that information may come from external sources or even from material already on record or may be derived from the discovery of new and important matter or fresh fact. Word - "informa…

CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 2. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO (SC) (133 ITD 79) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax