← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)
Section 129Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

inclined to decide the same first. For deciding the legal issue, we may look at the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act), which reads as under: - “Reasons for reopening of assessment ... clearly shows that the AO has not applied his mind while recording the reasons for reopening. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and so consequent re-assessments made are null in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the other additions made

Shri Arnesh Kumar Shakar Ex. Mla, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

that the relief so granted by the CIT(A), on the basis of which the additions in respect of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were deleted and which were, in our considered view, good enough to quash the reassessment itself, is not even challenged in further appeal. These ... reasons recorded the assessment, on the fact of this case and in our humble understanding, was good enough to hold the reasons for reopening the assessment to be incorrect as well. We are unable to see any legally sustainable reasons to come to different conclusions. In our considered view, therefore

Shri Sukhev Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 146/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 64Section 69A

Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 3. The Ground No. 1 to 5 are inter linked to each other wherein the appellant challenged validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on account of non-service of notice and non-application of mind by the AO. 4. From the record ... Singh v. ITO the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A) that the appellant has raised the legal issue challenging validity of reopening the assessment on facts of the case. At the same time, the appellant alleged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in upholding

Shrimati Amarjit Kaur W/O Bugar Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

Amarjit Kaur v. ITO 3. The Ground No. 1 to 3 are inter linked to each other wherein the appellant challenged validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under ... notice which was received by the appellant by putting thumb impression on the office copy. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening the Assessment, as under: “This office is in possession of certain information that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made a cash deposit

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 204/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

passing of the aforesaid order, which was on 31-03-2014. Therefore, evidently, as on the date of issuance of notice of reopening of assessment on 24-03-2014, the fund was an “approved fund” and ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years ... date on which the violation was committed by the assessee trust, however, the aforesaid reason must also find mention in the “reasons for reopening of assessment” notice issued to the assessee. We observe that on perusal of the reasons for reopening of assessment, the case of the assessee has been

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 203/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

passing of the aforesaid order, which was on 31-03-2014. Therefore, evidently, as on the date of issuance of notice of reopening of assessment on 24-03-2014, the fund was an “approved fund” and ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years ... date on which the violation was committed by the assessee trust, however, the aforesaid reason must also find mention in the “reasons for reopening of assessment” notice issued to the assessee. We observe that on perusal of the reasons for reopening of assessment, the case of the assessee has been

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 202/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

passing of the aforesaid order, which was on 31-03-2014. Therefore, evidently, as on the date of issuance of notice of reopening of assessment on 24-03-2014, the fund was an “approved fund” and ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years ... date on which the violation was committed by the assessee trust, however, the aforesaid reason must also find mention in the “reasons for reopening of assessment” notice issued to the assessee. We observe that on perusal of the reasons for reopening of assessment, the case of the assessee has been

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 201/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

passing of the aforesaid order, which was on 31-03-2014. Therefore, evidently, as on the date of issuance of notice of reopening of assessment on 24-03-2014, the fund was an “approved fund” and ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years ... date on which the violation was committed by the assessee trust, however, the aforesaid reason must also find mention in the “reasons for reopening of assessment” notice issued to the assessee. We observe that on perusal of the reasons for reopening of assessment, the case of the assessee has been

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1617/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1617/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2008-09) Purna Purshottam Exports, Gala No.329, Vardhman Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, Sv Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai 400 068 Pan: Aaefp-8085-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5) , Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 132

orders of authorities below examined. The assessee in appeal has raised seven grounds. In ground No.1 & 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed reopening of assessment. The ld.Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that he is not pressing ground No.1 and 2. In view of the statement made

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2036/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2035/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2034/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

G E Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle-1(13)(1) Internationaltaxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2033/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 786/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesky Gem V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Cc – 2081, G Block Room No. 905, 9Th Floor Bharat Diamonds Bourse Pratishtha Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Maharishi Karve Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aayfs8765J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya & Shri Tushar Nagori Department Represented By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

notice Page No. 30 of the Paper Book wherein the Assessing Officer has disposed of the various objections raised by the assessee for reopening the assessment. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR objected the submissions of the Ld. AR and he submitted that Assessing Officer has dealt with ... which it is decided as under: - “10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has reopened the assessment for the second time after expiry of four years Page No. 7 Sky Gem from the end of the assessment year, on the basis

Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Revenue, in the present assessment year 2010-11 any disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act is not justified and so does the reopening of assessment when the additions made for sum received from M/s Indu Project Ltd, has also not been allowed to be added in the year under

Shree Raj Foundation, Mum vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

object of assessee, therefore according to AO, it was colorable device to avoid taxation and therefore there was escapement of income. So, he reopened the assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening by filing letter dated 23.01.2014. However, the AO passed the re-assessment order on 07.03.2014 computing the income ... therefore, are not applicable to the proceedings under the Expenditure Tax Act, cannot be accepted. In the first place, the provisions relating to reopening of assessment are almost pari materia. Secondly, in so far as Assessment Year 1995-96 is concerned, the Respondent applied the very same ruling

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

section 147 is nothing but based on changed of opinion on same set of facts, which is not valid. Thus, the action of reopening of assessment is set aside. In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 11. Considering the facts that I have allowed the legal

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

another. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 4. Ground No.1 pertains to reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. The Ld. AR argued that the reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO is misconceived

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Or Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

another. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 4. Ground No.1 pertains to reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. The Ld. AR argued that the reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO is misconceived

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

another. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 4. Ground No.1 pertains to reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. The Ld. AR argued that the reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO is misconceived