What is N Govindraju v. ITO authority for?

If a notice under section 148(2) is valid, the Assessing Officer can make additions on any grounds that come to notice during reassessment proceedings under section 147, even if the original reasons for the notice no longer survive.

How many judgments cite N Govindraju v. ITO?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite N Govindraju v. ITO (377 ITR 243), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does N Govindraju v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 148, Section 271(1)(c).

N Govindraju v. ITO (377 ITR 243)

Income Tax Officer, Karnal vs. Opinder Singh Virk, Karnal

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

ITA 1095/DEL/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

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

…of Rs. 1,72,49,370/- even when no explanation regarding nature and source of the credit entries in the bank account was furnished with supporting documents in view of the Judgement in the case of N. Govindaraju Vs. ITO (2015) 60 taxman.com 333/233 Taxman 376/377 ITR 243 wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: "If notice under section 148(2) of the Act is found to be valid, then addition can be made on all grounds or issues which may come to notice of Assessing Officer subsequently during course of proceedings under section 147 of the Act even though reason for notice for 'such income which may ha…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 57/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…o.57/Hyd/2020 read as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration the decision in the case of Sri Govindraju vs. ITO of Karnataka High Court (377 ITR 243) wherein it was held that the notice u/s.148(2) is found to be valid then addition can be made on all amounts and issues which may come to the notice of the Assessing Office subsequently during the course of proceedings U/s.147 of the Act even though, reasons for notice for 'such income' which may have escaped assessment may not survive. 3 B. Ra…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…o.57/Hyd/2020 read as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration the decision in the case of Sri Govindraju vs. ITO of Karnataka High Court (377 ITR 243) wherein it was held that the notice u/s.148(2) is found to be valid then addition can be made on all amounts and issues which may come to the notice of the Assessing Office subsequently during the course of proceedings U/s.147 of the Act even though, reasons for notice for 'such income' which may have escaped assessment may not survive. 3 B. Ra…

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…perty. Undoubtedly, the commission has been paid through the bank account of the assessee with J&K Bank. We are, therefore of the view that the impugned disallowance is not justified. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in Govind Raju (N) vs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 243 (Kar) and CIT vs. Venkat 8 Rajendran (2015) 373 ITR 424 (Kar) that brokerage in connection with transfer is deductible expenditure. Ground No. 1 to 5 are accordingly decided in assessee’s favour. 14. As regards disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 31,86,363/- the indexed cost of which is Rs. 57,43,085/- the relevant facts are that the ass…

Shri Anilbhai Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…e to tax which came to his notice during the proceedings. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently assess the latter. [Para 11] Similarly the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of N Govindraju v ITO reported in 377 ITR 243 held as under: 24. The 'reason to believe' that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, is one aspect of the matter. If such reason exists, the Assessing Officer can undoubtedly assess or reassess such income, for which there is such 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is the first part of t…