K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO

52 ITR 355Supreme Court of India1964#10661 most cited

What is K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment action under Section 34(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is permissible only when the escaped income is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more, indicating that the removal of limitation periods is restricted to cases of high magnitude escaped income.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Also referred to as

K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO · Section 34(1A) · reassessment · escaped income · Rs 1 lakh · high magnitude · limitation period

Judgments citing K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO

Tej Singh, Mathura vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mathura

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…ivastava v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 222 (All) held that non- recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. 23. In K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355 (SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: “The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases Page 20 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO falling under section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cas…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssessing Officer is required to substantiate his satisfaction in the reasons recorded by him. If the conditions mentioned are not satisfied, then the issuance of notice would be invalid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S Rashid & Sons v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355(SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held(Page 363); "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under section 34(1A) action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped inco…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssessing Officer is required to substantiate his satisfaction in the reasons recorded by him. If the conditions mentioned are not satisfied, then the issuance of notice would be invalid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S Rashid & Sons v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355(SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held(Page 363); "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under section 34(1A) action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped inco…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. M/S. Parsuram Sanwarmal Agarwalla & Sons, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…and another, 40 ITR 222 held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. In K.S. Rashid & Son and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52 ITR 355 a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under Section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a hig…

Income Tax Officerm Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Bhama Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…and another, 40 ITR 222 held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. In K.S. Rashid & Son and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52 ITR 355 a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under Section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a hig…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…and another, 40 ITR 222 held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. In K.S. Rashid & Son and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52 ITR 355 a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under Section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a hig…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…and another, 40 ITR 222 held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. In K.S. Rashid & Son and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52 ITR 355 a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: "The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under Section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a hig…

Smt. Nirmala Nigam, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 703/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

…rivastava v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 222 (All) held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lakh or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. 23. In K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355 (SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: “The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a…

Usha Agarwal, Agra vs. ITO 4(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…rivastava v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 222 (All) held that non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs.1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment. 23. In K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355 (SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: “The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under section 34(1A), action can be taken only I.T.A No. 167/Agra/2018 23 where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases wh…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pp Engineering Work

The appeal is disposed of

ITA-179/2010HC Delhi31 Jul 2014
Section 147Section 149Section 150Section 153Section 68

…ral Electrification Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., [2013] 355 ITR 345 (Delhi) had occasion to consider the effect of Explanation 3 and whether the ratio as expounded by the Supreme Court in ITO Vs. Muralidhar Bhagwan Das, [1964] 52 ITR 355 (SC) would be still applicable. The legislative history including purpose behind enactment of sub-section (2) to Section 150 and Explanations 2 and 3 to Section 150 of the Act were referred to. Reference was also made to sub-section (3), clause (ii) of Section 153 of the Act and thereafter it was opined:- “12. When the Income Tax Act, 1961…

K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO (52 ITR 355) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax