Yuvraj v. Union of India

315 ITR 84High Court2009#1415 most cited

What is Yuvraj v. Union of India authority for?

Reassessment under Section 148 is valid and does not constitute a mere change of opinion if the original assessment order demonstrates no application of mind to a specific issue, such as the assessability of capital gains or casual income. In such cases, the Assessing Officer is justified in issuing a notice under Section 148 to address the unexamined income escapement.

81

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Yuvraj v. Union of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · mere change of opinion · no application of mind · escapement of income · reason to believe · capital gains · sale of right to purchase plot · validity of reassessment notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 12

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)mere change of opinionkelvinatorchange of opinionsection 292btangible materialreason to believeborrowed satisfactionescapement of incomesection 292reopening of assessmentsection 29

Judgments citing Yuvraj v. Union of India

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

…sue on which opinion has been once formed. In the\npresent case, it seen that no opinion has been formed and no discussion has been made of\nthe issue under consideration in the original assessment proceedings. In the case of\nYuvraj v. Union of India, (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay)\nof the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the points not decided while passing\nassessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. The relevant\nextract of the order is reproduced as under:\n\"We have perused the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax\nAct,…

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…Taxman 83 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax v. H.P. 27. Sharma S. RANGANATHAN AND D.R. KHANNA, .1,1 [2006] 151 Taxman 41 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. 28. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 29. [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Yuvraj v. Union of India [2011] 197 Taxman 415 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. 30. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. [2012] 21taxmann.com438 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Money Growth Investment & 31. Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 32. [2014] 4Itaxmann.com2 I (Delhi) HIGH CO…

DESH RAJ JAKHAR,GORDHANPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

…sment. b) It is a remedial provision enabling the reassessment of income beyond the original scrutiny c) Section 148 is not dependent on the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) 1.4 Judicial Precedents for Section 148: a) Yuvraj v. Union of India ((2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom)): Held that reopening under Section 148 can be initiated even when time for issuing notice under Section 143(2) is available. b) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [(1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)]: Confirmed that Section 148 can be invoked if there is new information or material leading to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. 1.5 Key Distinc…

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…4 Taxman 83 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax v. H.P.\nSharma S. RANGANATHAN AND D.R. KHANNA, JJ\n28.\n[2006] 151 Taxman 41 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Consolidated Photo &Finvest Ltd.\nv. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n29.\n[2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Yuvraj v. Union of India\n30.\n[2011] 197 Taxman 415 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax.\n31.\n[2012] 21taxmann.com438 (Delhi)HIGH COURT OF DELHIMoney Growth Investment &\nConsultants (P.) Ltd.v.Income-tax Officer\n32.\n[2014] 41taxmann.com21 (Delhi)HIGH CO…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ble grounds for the Assessing Officer and not whether\nthe omission/ failure and the escapement of income is\nestablished. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind.\nii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union\nof India & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment\nto be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order\nthe Asstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee has sold her\nright to purchase an open plot and computed the total income\nas per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no\napplication of mind on the part of the Asstt. CIT to the facts of\nthe case and th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ble grounds for the Assessing Officer and not whether\nthe omission/ failure and the escapement of income is\nestablished. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind.\nii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union\nof India & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment\nto be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order\nthe Asstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee has sold her\nright to purchase an open plot and computed the total income\nas per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no\napplication of mind on the part of the Asstt. CIT to the facts of\nthe case and th…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…p this distinction in mind. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) of India & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order the Asstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee has sold her sstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee h…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…p this distinction in mind. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) of India & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment 315 ITR 84 has held that reassessment to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order to be valid in this case. While passing the assessment order the Asstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee has sold her sstt. CIT merely noted that the assessee h…

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4307/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…toapply his mind, during original assessment proceedings, to points on which assessment is sought to be reopened, it can be said that there is tangible material and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Yuvraj V/s Union of India (Bom.) (2009) 315 ITR 84- The issue, which has not been decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3), cannot be said a case of change of opinion. Page | 8 ITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023 Mehli Mehta Music Foundation Nishith Madanlal Desai V/s CIT-11, Mumbai(2014) 49 taxmann.com 336 (Bom HC)- In course of assessment proceedings for subsequent…

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4306/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…er toapply his mind, during original assessment proceedings, to points on whichassessment is sought to be reopened, it can be said that there is tangiblematerial and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Yuvraj V/s Union of India (Bom.) (2009) 315 ITR 84- The issue, which has not been decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3), cannot be said a case of change of opinion. Page | 8 ITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023 Mehli Mehta Music Foundation ➤ Nishith Madanlal Desai V/s CIT-11, Mumbai(2014) 49 taxmann.com 336 (Bom HC)- In course of assessment proceedings for subsequent…

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4261/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…toapply his mind, during original assessment proceedings, to points on which assessment is sought to be reopened, it can be said that there is tangible material and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Yuvraj V/s Union of India (Bom.) (2009) 315 ITR 84- The issue, which has not been decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3), cannot be said a case of change of opinion. Page | 8 ITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023 Mehli Mehta Music Foundation Nishith Madanlal Desai V/s CIT-11, Mumbai(2014) 49 taxmann.com 336 (Bom HC)- In course of assessment proceedings for subsequent…

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4260/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…er toapply his mind, during original assessment proceedings, to points on whichassessment is sought to be reopened, it can be said that there is tangiblematerial and reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Yuvraj V/s Union of India (Bom.) (2009) 315 ITR 84- The issue, which has not been decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3), cannot be said a case of change of opinion. Page | 8 ITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023 Mehli Mehta Music Foundation ➤ Nishith Madanlal Desai V/s CIT-11, Mumbai(2014) 49 taxmann.com 336 (Bom HC)- In course of assessment proceedings for subsequent…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 644/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The ACIT बनाम M/s SML Isuzu Ltd. Circle1 (1), Chandigarh SCO 204-205, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS2991P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri…

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax v. H.P. Sharma 26 Goyal Vegoils Ltd. vs. DCIT S. RANGANATHAN AND D.R. KHANNA, JJ 28. [2006] 151 Taxman 41 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Yuvraj v. Union of India 29. 30. [2011] 197 Taxman 415 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. 31. [2012] 2ltaxmann.com438 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Money Growth Investment & Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 32. [2014] 41taxmann.com21 (Delhi) HIGH C…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, DURG vs. BHILAI JAYPEE CEMENT LTD., BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…e case, the Id CIT(A), NFAC is justified in quashing the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s of the Acton the ground that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer whereas the case of Yuvraj v/s Union of India of Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) (2009) 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) has held that "points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) is not a case of change of opinion & assessment was reopened validly" and in the case of Chetan Sabharwal v/s ACIT of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (2019) 110 taxman. com 57 (Delhi) has held that where original assessment orders we…

ACIT, WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA vs. M/S AUTOMARK TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA ) LIMITED, YAVATMAL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 403/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that re-opening of the case was merely a change of opinion contrary to the view of judgment by Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Yuvraj 315 ITR 84 (Bom) inspite of the fact that AO had received specific information that equity plus premium received by assessee is bogus and there was reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 2 ITA.No.403/Nag./2019 (ACIT vs. M/s. Automark Technologies (India) Limited 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lea…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf; dlnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 82/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Kailash Chand Yadav cuke Income Tax Officer, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Vs. Ward-1(1), Jaipur. Sheoshinghpura, Akoda, Phulera, Jaipur-303338. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACXPY 1162 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Podd…

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 37/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

Section 147

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., OMC House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 PAN No.AAACO 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue Shri Siddharth Ranjan & Dinakar Mohanty, CAs for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…essee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and also objected to the validity of the reopening of the assessments. The ld. CIT (A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs. Union of India (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) rejected the ground raised objecting to reopening of assessment. The ld. CIT (A) has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Susham Singla vs. CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 167 (SC) and Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi) and upheld the order of A.O. in asses…

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…essee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and also objected to the validity of the reopening of the assessments. The ld. CIT (A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs. Union of India (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) rejected the ground raised objecting to reopening of assessment. The ld. CIT (A) has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Susham Singla vs. CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 167 (SC) and Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi) and upheld the order of A.O. in asses…

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5