“Section 34(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(3)11 judgments

A.C..I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

For Appellant: \nShri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

held that 'finding' means the\nfinding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment year in question\nand the proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time prescribed\nunder section 34(1) in respect of escaped assessment of any year other than\nthat which

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the\nRevenue is dismissed

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

For Appellant: \nShri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

ITA 1301/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

held that\n'finding' means the finding necessary for giving relief\nin respect of the assessment year in question and the\nproviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time\nprescribed under section 34(1) in respect of escaped\nassessment of any year other than that ... held that\n'finding' means the finding necessary for giving relief\nin respect of the assessment year in question and the\nproviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time\nprescribed under section 34(1) in respect of escaped\nassessment of any year other than that

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

nomine parties to the appeal, their assessments depend upon the assessments on the former. Thus, the unconstitutionality of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act was confined only to the persons who are not intimately connected with the assessments and not with respect to the assessee ... assess it in the hands of the firm. As the time had run out for normal reopening, the second proviso to section 34(3) was pressed into service, and the Supreme Court held that it was rightly done. In Hungerford Investment Trust

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 154Section 244A

finding’ or ‘direction’ in a decision/order. It held as under: ‘(v) That the expression “finding” and “direction”, in the second proviso to section 34(3), meant respectively, a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment for the year in question, and a direction which appellate or revisional

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

complied with before jurisdiction to reassess can be validly assumed must be fulfilled. The Apex Court while construing the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1921 held as under : The first part of the proviso released the operation of the proviso from the restriction imposed

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250

order is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court while dealing with a provision similar to Section 150 of the Act found in Section 34(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in ITO v/s. Murlidar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 has explained the meaning of finding' thus:- A finding

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Bhagwan Das[1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) in the context of whether such a direction would be saved by the second proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section 150 of the Act. In the facts of that case, the assessing authority brought interest income ... also confined to the year of assessment. It further went on to explain and dilate on the concept of ‘finding’ and ‘direction’ in section 34(3) of the said Act. It is only a ‘finding’ necessary for the disposal of the appeal in respect of an assessment for a particular

BHOLARAM MALVIYA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-16(1)|(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

Murlidhar Bhagwan Das’ (supra) are directly on the issue: “That the expressions “finding” and “direction”, in the second proviso to section 34(3), meant respectively, a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment for the year in question, and a direction which the appellate or revisional authority ... decision in the case of ‘N. KT. Sivalingam Chettiar vs. CIT’ (supra), observed that a finding within the second proviso to section 34(3) must be necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment of the year in question; and that the word “finding” only covers material questions

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

allowed the claim of the assessee for development rebate in respect of dyes and tools. This order was accepted by the revenue. However section 34 (3)(a) was overlooked by the A.O. Section 34(3)(a) provides that the development rebate 'shall not' be allowed unless an amount specified therein ... given under section 33. Therefore, the assessee, in the present case, not having complied with or fulfilled one of the conditions prescribed under section 34(3(a) was not entitled to the development rebate under section 33. Thereafter, the ITO made an order under section I54, holding that

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 2328/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, DR

Section 10(37)Section 11Section 143(3)Section 96

continued after that date by virtue of section 297(2)(d)(i), the provisions of the second proviso to section 34(3) would preclude the operation of the normal rule of limitation for reassessments. In this situation, it will be a great anomaly to reach the conclusion that the time