How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri Ram Singh?

180 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri Ram Singh (306 ITR 343), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri Ram Singh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 139(1).

CIT v. Shri Ram Singh

306 ITR 343High Court2008#534 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Ram Singh authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess any other income under Section 147 if the original grounds for issuing the Section 148 notice are not sustained. Jurisdiction to add other income discovered during reassessment proceedings arises only if the income for which the notice was initially issued is successfully assessed or reassessed.

180

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri Ram Singh · 306 ITR 343 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment jurisdiction · original grounds not sustained · income escaping assessment · scope of reassessment · Jet Airways principle · Explanation 3 Section 147

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 438217 CTR 3458 DTR 118

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 139(1)Section 144B Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 148(2)section 32(1)(iia)clarificatory amendment section 140 income escaping assessment kelvinator fresh tangible material section 234d reason to believe additional depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Ram Singh

Murlidhar Kriplani, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 54F

…isallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F by the assessee as there was no addition on the ground as recorded in reasons to believe u/s 148. The Ld. CIT(A) order is against the binding judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Sh. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) & CIT v/s Dr. Devendra Gupta (336 ITR 59) 4.That on the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in the law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming that assessee appellant is not entitled for the benefit claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act on technical ground which is bad in law. 5. That on the fact and…

Ranjeet Sharma, Rawatsar vs. ITO, Ward Nohar, Hanumangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 148Section 68

…the subject matter of assessment in the hands of the assessee. The ITAT, Jaipur followed the decisions of Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v/s Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 and Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343. 6) Bombay High Court in the case of Dul raj U Jain v/s ACIT had held that, "If the recorded reasons do not specify primafacie, the QUANTUM OF TAX which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs. 100000/= and if the reopening is TO VERIFY suspicious transactions, prima facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belie…

Usha K Jolly Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 174/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan), it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make any other addition. Therefore, what follows from this is that the ld. CIT (Exemption) could not have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of item, which could not have been disallowed in the reassessment proceedings in respect of which the 263 proceedings were initiated…

M/S Sunil Chetndas Katariya, HUF, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 261/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269S

…e Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan), it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make any other addition. Therefore, what follows from this is that the ld. PCIT could not have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of item, which could not have been disallowed in the reassessment proceedings in respect of which the 263 proceedings were initiated. In this c…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…ction 69A of the Act.” iii] In view of above the reasons for reopening assigned and addition made by the ld AO are contrary each other and as such in light of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in th case of CIT v/s Shri Ram Singh (2008) 8 DTR 118/306 ITR 343(Raj HC), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). iv] Further also Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITA No. 1388/JP/2019 dated 15/0…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

Kaushik Industries (P) Limited, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/GTY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 263

…recedents, including – (i) Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Vs. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 272 (Mum); (ii) Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar Vs. ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bom.); (iii) CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.); (v) CIT (Exemp.) Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal). 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that Explanation 3 to section 147 provides that Ld. AO may assess or re-assess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issue comes to his…

Ujjwal Microfinance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section." 15. Thereafter, the High Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT versus Shri Ram Singh, (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) in which it has been observed as under: "It is only when, in proceedings under section 147 the Assessing Officer, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had 'reason to believe' to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other inc…

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

…o tax which the AO may find to have escaped assessment and which may come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceeding under section 147. Case Laws: 1. Dy CIT v. Takshila Education Society [2016] 378 ITR 520 (Patna HC) 2. CIT v Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj HC) 3. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT v Jet Airways (1) Ltd [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom HC) 5. CIT v Dr Devendra Gupta [2011] 336 ITR 59 (Raj HC) 6. ACIT v Bharat Inftel Ltd [2015] 42 CCH 374 (Del Trib) 7. Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd v DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Mad) 6. For that the other grounds, if any…

Raju Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed ‘’

ITA 411/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 69C

…ddition, ignoring the fact that they did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, once it was found that the ground mentioned in the notice u/s 148 were incorrect and non- existent as held by Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Atlas Cycle Indutries (1989) 180 ITR 319. 6. That the authorities below failed to appreciate that the assessee had filed the reply and submitted the IKRARNAMA to prove his point which was brushed aside based upon imagination and suspicion, without proving the same to be bogus, ingenuine or fabricate…

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…l decisions:-  M/s Hariom Stones vs. PCIT in ITA No. 534/JP/2016 dated 04.04.2018.  Shri Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO in ITA No. 2690 & 2691/Mum/2016 dated 06.05.2016.  Sanjeev Kr. Khemka vs. PCIT in ITA No. 1361/Kol/2016 dated 02.06.2017.  CIT vs. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj H.C.).  CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited ITA No. 1714 of 2009 with ITA No. 1526 of 2008 dated 12.04.2010 ( H.C. Bombay)  Radha Govind Lashkari vs. PCIT in ITA No. 32/JP/2021 dated 12.04.2022.  CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj. H.C.)  Jhunjhunu Kraya vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 150/JP/2022 dated 15.12.2022…

ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad vs. Keshav Medichem P.Ltd, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 154/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

…which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section." 20. Thereafter, the High Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT versus Shri Ram Singh, (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) in which it has been observed as under: "It is only when, in proceedings under section 147 the Assessing Officer, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had 'reason to believe' to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other inc…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…sess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section." 32 | P a g e 7.3.3. CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) (DPB 44-50) 217 CTR (Raj) 345 ,118: (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) in which it has been observed as under: "It is only when in proceedings under s. 147 the AO, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had 'reason to believe' to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax,…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…s been supported by the background which led to the insertion of the Explanation 3 to section 147. The Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation placed on the words 'and also', by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343. The Parliament has not taken away the basis of that decision. While it is open to the Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147(1), as they stood after the amendment of 1-4-1989, continue to hold the field. [Para 17] The question of law would, accordingly, stand answered against…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 370/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Shri Pradeep Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Vs. S/o Dhanraj, ACTO, Ward 2, Choudhary Colony, W. No. 18, Jhunjhunu. Chirawa, The. Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AUSPK 0411 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Mohit Metals Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Praphull Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 40Section 69C

…orting our contention. Few such judgements are: 1. CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 (Punj. & Har.) 2. Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Sawaimadhopur (2018) 409 ITR 242 (RAJ) 3. CIT v. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (RAJ) 4. CIT vs. Jet Airways 195 Taxman 117 (BOM) 5. Smt. Saraswati Devi v. ITO, Ward 1(2), Alwar ITA No.219/JP/2012 Jaipur) M/S. MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LTD VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR 6. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.CIT ITA No. 148/2008 (Del.) 7. Sheela Foam Limited v. DCIT ITA No.4096/Del/2018 (ITAT Delhi.) Further, it is submitted that Hon'ble ITA…

M/S. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt.Ltd, Latur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nashik

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 210/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). 14. The second line of precedent is reflected in a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 . The Rajasthan High Court construed the words used by Parliament in section 147 particularly the words that the Assessing Officer 'may 14 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment…

M/S. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt.Ltd, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263