Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT

191 ITR 634Supreme Court of India1991#818 most cited

What is Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT authority for?

Assessment is an integrated process that includes both the determination of the assessee's total income or loss and the calculation of the tax payable, as required by Section 143(3). This process culminates with the issuance of a notice of demand under Section 156.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT · Section 143(3) · Section 156 · assessment procedure · definition of assessment · determination of income · determination of tax payable · completion of assessment · notice of demand · integrated assessment process

Also reported as

60 Taxmann.com 334

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 144Section 153ASection 115BBESection 292CSection 132Section 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 144asection 269ssspecified authorityblock periodsection 292csection 158bsection 156section 158section 292section 153a(1)

Judgments citing Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

…ts tax liability on the total income. We have given a thoughtful consideration and find substantial force in the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) and CIT, Delhi Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxman.com 334 (SC), had observed, that that computation/quantification of the „tax‟ and „interest‟ liability of an assessee, though carried out on a different sheet of paper and the A.O approves of it, either immediately or sometime later, would form part of the assessment order.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

…ts tax liability on the total income. We have given a thoughtful consideration and find substantial force in the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) and CIT, Delhi Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxman.com 334 (SC), had observed, that that computation/quantification of the „tax‟ and „interest‟ liability of an assessee, though carried out on a different sheet of paper and the A.O approves of it, either immediately or sometime later, would form part of the assessment order.…

Defsys Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1818/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2020-21] Defsys Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T C/o Flat No. 1, 1st Floor, Central Circle - 15 1, Dakshineshwar Building New Delhi 10, Hailey Road, New Delhi PAN: AACCD 5328 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv Ms. Airik Singla, Adv Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT ME…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…essment order dated 12.03.2012 as invalid on the ground that the same does not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. The appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT [1991] reported in 191 ITR 634 and that given in the case of Smt. Kilasho Deoi Burman vs. CIT [1996] reported in 85 Taxman 346. Drawing attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shenoy & Co. vs ITO [1985] (155 ITR 178), it was submitted that the aforesaid decisions were binding on all, including those not parties before the Court. Reliance was also placed on th…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…essment order dated 12.03.2012 as invalid on the ground that the same does not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. The appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT [1991] reported in 191 ITR 634 and that given in the case of Smt. Kilasho Deoi Burman vs. CIT [1996] reported in 85 Taxman 346. Drawing attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shenoy & Co. vs ITO [1985] (155 ITR 178), it was submitted that the aforesaid decisions were binding on all, including those not parties before the Court. Reliance was also placed on th…

Vijubha Jitubha Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 105/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…o the Revenue. 8.2 The contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the computation of tax is not part of the assessment order is incorrect. The sheet of computation of tax has been held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray vs CIT 191 ITR 634(SC) as being part of the assessment order in terms of section 143(3) of the Act. Any error in the same, we hold, would undoubtedly constitute an error in the assessment order. 8.3 In view of the same, we confirm the order of the Ld. PCIT holding the non-invocation of section 115BBE of the Act on the addition made on I.T.A No. 105/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2…

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 746/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ketan Ved/Ms. Urvi Mehta/For Respondent: Aditya M Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 234BSection 270A

…P a g e | 1 Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Add/Joint/DCIT/ITO, NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Brightstar Infrastructure Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited Assistant Commissioner 610, Tulsiani Chambers of Income Tax/Income Nariman Point, Tax Officer, National Mumbai – 400021 Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCB8367Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Ketan Ved/Ms. Urvi Mehta/ Abdulkadir Jawadwala Respondent by : Aditya M Rai Date of Hea…

Pushpagiri Medical Society, Thiruvalla vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Thiruvananthapura

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypushpagiri Medical Society Asst. Cit Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) Vs. Pan – Aaatp2418H Cochin

For Appellant: Shri Abraham K Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 272B

…o appeal lies against refusal of refund u/s.237 of the Act. However, as would be seen, the same follows the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act read with the computation sheet. The said sheet is an integral part of the assessment order (Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC)), so that the appeal is in effect in respect of the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, an appealable order u/s. 246A of the Act. The exercise of reconciliation of the two sets of figures, i.e., under the two PANs, with the assessee’s return, has been undertaken through the proceedings under section 148A dated 31/3/2022 (copy on record). This…

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…rom the notice of demand issued u/s.156 of the Act, which forms an integral part of the assessment order itself. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had, inter alia, observed that I.T.N.S 150 is a form for determination of tax payable and when it is signed or initialed by the Income-tax Officer, it is certainly an order in writing by the Income-tax Officer determining the tax payable within the meaning of Section 143(3) of the Act which has…

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…rom the notice of demand issued u/s.156 of the Act, which forms an integral part of the assessment order itself. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had, inter alia, observed that I.T.N.S 150 is a form for determination of tax payable and when it is signed or initialed by the Income-tax Officer, it is certainly an order in writing by the Income-tax Officer determining the tax payable within the meaning of Section 143(3) of the Act which has…

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

…DRP or the CIT(A), a draft order has to be necessarily followed by an assessment order on the basis of which a notice of demand is issued and it is then that the assessment is said to have come to an end. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Kumar Ray (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) has held that assessment order involves determination of income P a g e | 12 Lord India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(1) and tax. It laid down that: `‘Assessment' is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The latter is as crucial for the assessee as the former.…

Global Hospitality Licensing Sarl, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Range - 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 1136/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

For Appellant: Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

…P a g e | 1 Global Hospitality Licensing SARL Vs. DCIT(IT) Range-2(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Global Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Licensing SARL Income Tax (I.T.) C/o Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCG5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Paras…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Cisco Systems Services B V

ITA/427/2022HC Karnataka24 Feb 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 260

…e carefully considered Section 292B of the Act. The mistake which the ACIT has done in passing the final order at the stage of draft order is not curable under Section 292B of the Act. 9 (1991) 191 ITR 634 SC ITA No.427/2022 A/W ITA No.428/2022,…

M/S Kesarwani Marketing(P).Ltd., Allahabad vs. Jt. CIT(OSD), Allahabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…n (2001) 119 Taxman 352(SC), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhagat Construction Company Limited , reported in (2016) 383 ITR 9(SC) and also to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT, reported in (1991) 191 ITR 634(SC) . Thus, this ground of appeal raised by assessee stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 8. Ground No. 8 raised by assesse in memo of appeal is general in nature and stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 9. In the result , appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.We order accordingly.…

M/S Kesarwani Marketing (P) Ltd, Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT, (OSD), Allahabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 77/ALLD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…n (2001) 119 Taxman 352(SC), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhagat Construction Company Limited , reported in (2016) 383 ITR 9(SC) and also to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT, reported in (1991) 191 ITR 634(SC) . Thus, this ground of appeal raised by assessee stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 8. Ground No. 8 raised by assesse in memo of appeal is general in nature and stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 9. In the result , appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.We order accordingly.…

M/S Kesarwani Marketing (P) Ltd, Allahabad vs. Jt. C.It, (OSD), Allahabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 76/ALLD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…n (2001) 119 Taxman 352(SC), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhagat Construction Company Limited , reported in (2016) 383 ITR 9(SC) and also to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT, reported in (1991) 191 ITR 634(SC) . Thus, this ground of appeal raised by assessee stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 8. Ground No. 8 raised by assesse in memo of appeal is general in nature and stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 9. In the result , appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.We order accordingly.…

M/S Kesarwani <Arketing (P) Ltd, Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT (OSD), Allahabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 159/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…n (2001) 119 Taxman 352(SC), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhagat Construction Company Limited , reported in (2016) 383 ITR 9(SC) and also to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT, reported in (1991) 191 ITR 634(SC) . Thus, this ground of appeal raised by assessee stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 8. Ground No. 8 raised by assesse in memo of appeal is general in nature and stand dismissed. We order accordingly. 9. In the result , appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.We order accordingly.…

Apache Footwear India Private Limited, Mambattu Village vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 144CSection 5

…RP or the CIT(A), a draft order has to be necessarily followed by an assessment order on the basis of which a notice of demand is issued and it is then that the assessment is said to have come to an end. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Kumar Ray (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) has held that assessment order involves determination of income and tax. It laid down that: `‘Assessment&#x27; is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The latter is as crucial for the assessee as the former.’ Again the Hon’ble Summit Court in Auto and Metal Engineers v…

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

…DRP or the CIT(A), a draft order has to be necessarily followed by an assessment order on the basis of which a notice of demand is issued and it is then that the assessment is said to have come to an end. 11. The Hon&#x27;ble Apex Court in Kalyan Kumar Ray (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) has held that assessment order involves determination of income and tax. It laid down that: `&#x27;Assessment&#x27; is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The latter is as crucial for the assessee as the former.&#x27; Again the Hon&#x27;ble Summit Court in Auto and Metal Engineers v…

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…u/s.156 is only a prescribed form to specify the sum payable as a consequence of an order. An assessment is done under the provisions of sedition 143(3)/144. Our attention is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray vs CIT, 191 ITR 634 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessment order involves determination of income and tax. It has also laid down that the assessment is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The latter is crucial for the assessee as the former. Here one is to…