What is Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO authority for?

In proceedings challenging the reopening of an assessment, the High Court's role is limited to examining whether the conditions for reopening existed, not to make a final decision on the merits of the disclosure. A mistake in a notice, such as non-indication of the penalty limb, will not invalidate penalty proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the assessee and they are aware of the charges.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 10A, Section 143(2).

Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO (63 ITR 638)

Q: How many judgments cite Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO (63 ITR 638), spanning 2009 to 2026.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…ke in the language used or mere non-striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice 2. In CIT v. Mithila Motors [1984] 16 Taxman 224/149 ITR 751 (Pat), relying on the decision in Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), wherein it was clarified that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, it was held that even granting that the notice u/s. 274 was defective or bad in law, the penalty proceedings would not fail as no prejudice had been caused to the assessee; all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunit…

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…in the assessment order, then non-indication of the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated will not be fatal. In this regard, inter alia he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s K. P. Madhusudhan vs CIT (2001) 118 TAXMAN 324 (SC). He further relied upon the about the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para-26 in the case of New Holland Tractors [India] P. Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Del.), wherein, it observed that ‘at times and it…

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ue disclosure. 11. In the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 3941 , the Delhi High Court has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court and observed :— "In Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 , the Apex Court held that in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice for reopening the assessment, the High Court was only concerned with examining whether the conditions which invested the Income-tax Officer with the powers to reopen the assessment existe…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…CIT disposed of on 17-1-2006 [2006] 281 ITR 3941 an occasion to deal with a somewhat similar situation. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

…CIT disposed of on 17-1-2006 [2006] 281 ITR 3941 an occasion to deal with a somewhat similar situation. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…hd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra). Most of the decisions in the matter are prior to insertion of s. 292B. Though not a case one, a defective notice, it is well-settled, does not annul proceedings. Reference is made to Kantamani Vankata Narayan & Sons v. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court upheld a reassessment notice which did not, similarly, set out the clause under which it was issued. At worst, where a prejudice is shown, the matter would stand to be remitted to the stage where the irregularity had thus intervened. There are accordingly decisions galore to the effect that due opportunity to explain h…

P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

…ceedings. Case law on this, even in the context of penalty notice, is legion, and toward which we may though cite some for reference: Kantamani Venkata Narayana Page 3 ITANo. 01/Coch/2022 (AY: 2014-15) P.R. Sudeep vs. Dy. CIT & Sons vs. First Addl. ITO[1966] 63 ITR 638 (SC);T.A. Abdul Khader(supra). The case law relied upon is de hors the facts of the case. 4. We, accordingly, find no merit in the assessee’s challenge to the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act, since confirmed, in the instant case, and uphold the same. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronoun…

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/s. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & TPS Kakkad Road vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [PAN:CCWPK6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty levied u…

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5891, 5892, 5893, 5894, 5895, 5896 & 5897/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd., Central Circle-8(1), 9 A.K. Naik Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Near New Empire M.K. Marg, Cinema, New Marine Lines, CST, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCJ 5937F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.6311, 6312, 6313, 6314, 6315 & 6316/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-1…

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2699/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: 16.10.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 47

…99/Chny/2017 appellant was not offered to tax . In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) relied on various decisions viz., Indian Home Pipe Co. Ltd., 348 ITR 439 (BOM), and a Siel Power Products Ltd., 340 ITR 53 (Del), Kantamani Venkatesh Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO 63 ITR 638 SC, ITO v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd., 264 ITR 410 (Cal), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 SC, Kelvinator of India 187 Taxman 312 SC etc . In view of the above Judgements, the ld. CIT(A) held that until otherwise a case is made out that the A O examined the said issue and accepted, merely furnishing of such 'information which…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…otors P. ltd. 149 ITR 751(Patna) Reference is invited to para 12 and 13 of the above order. In the above case, the Hon'ble Patna HC relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had be…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…otors P. ltd. 149 ITR 751(Patna) Reference is invited to para 12 and 13 of the above order. In the above case, the Hon'ble Patna HC relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had be…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…otors P. ltd. 149 ITR 751(Patna) Reference is invited to para 12 and 13 of the above order. In the above case, the Hon'ble Patna HC relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had be…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…otors P. ltd. 149 ITR 751(Patna) Reference is invited to para 12 and 13 of the above order. In the above case, the Hon'ble Patna HC relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had be…

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…prise (supra) we hold that show cause notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1) ( c) cannot be held to be invalid’’. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons vs. First Additional Income Tax Officer, Rajamundhry, (1967) 63 ITR 638 had held that mere mistake in the show cause notice does not render the show cause void null and void. Furthermore, mere dismissal of the SLP does not mean laying down law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons (supra) prevails over the decision of Hon’…

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…prise (supra) we hold that show cause notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1) ( c) cannot be held to be invalid’’. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons vs. First Additional Income Tax Officer, Rajamundhry, (1967) 63 ITR 638 had held that mere mistake in the show cause notice does not render the show cause void null and void. Furthermore, mere dismissal of the SLP does not mean laying down law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons (supra) prevails over the decision of Hon’…

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…prise (supra) we hold that show cause notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1) ( c) cannot be held to be invalid’’. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons vs. First Additional Income Tax Officer, Rajamundhry, (1967) 63 ITR 638 had held that mere mistake in the show cause notice does not render the show cause void null and void. Furthermore, mere dismissal of the SLP does not mean laying down law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons (supra) prevails over the decision of Hon’…

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1204/JPR/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…the assessment of income for the years in question were not truly and fully disclosed and there was an escapement of tax in consequence thereof our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayan & Sons 63 ITR 638. Accordingly, we hold that the Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT reopening of assessment completed U/s 143(3) even after four year from the end of the relevant assessment year was justified since there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant assessment years 19…

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1203/JPR/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…the assessment of income for the years in question were not truly and fully disclosed and there was an escapement of tax in consequence thereof our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayan & Sons 63 ITR 638. Accordingly, we hold that the Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT reopening of assessment completed U/s 143(3) even after four year from the end of the relevant assessment year was justified since there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant assessment years 19…

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1202/JPR/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…the assessment of income for the years in question were not truly and fully disclosed and there was an escapement of tax in consequence thereof our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayan & Sons 63 ITR 638. Accordingly, we hold that the Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT reopening of assessment completed U/s 143(3) even after four year from the end of the relevant assessment year was justified since there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant assessment years 19…

Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO

What is Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR