← All Phrases

“Section 22(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 22Section 22(2)31 judgments

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Joganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions of section

PITTI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 148Section 148A

items not claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in Jaganmohan Rao''s case dealt with the language of Sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engineering Works (supra) interprets the provisions of Section 147 as they stood

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

Forest Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K), the notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the assessee who was not authorised to accept such notice. Sub-sequently ... have been duly served upon the assessee. It was held that 'acquisition of knowledge in regard to the issuance of a notice under section 22(2) of 1922 Act could not be considered to be equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the assessee

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

Forest Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K), the notice was issued\nby the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act.\nThe notice was served on an employee of the assessee who was not authorised\nto accept such notice. Sub-sequently ... have\nbeen duly served upon the assessee. It was held that 'acquisition of knowledge in\nregard to the issuance of a notice under section 22(2) of 1922 Act could not be\nconsidered to be equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the\nassessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

facts were like this. The relevant assessment year was 1960-61. In that regard the Income- tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on June l, 1960, served on the assessee on June 13, 1960, requiring the assessee to submit

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

facts were like this. The relevant\n assessment year was 1960-61. In that regard the Income- tax Officer issued a\nnotice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on June 1, 1960,\nserved on the assessee on June 13, 1960, requiring the assessee to submit

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

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

ITA 3407/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2010-11
Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(47)

during the course of\nthe original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case\n(supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while\nthe judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions\nof section

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

assessment to the best of his judgment. In other words, if a person fails to make the return required by a notice under section 22(2) and he has further not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (3) of the same section, the Income- tax Officer

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

assessment to the best of his judgment. In other words, if a person fails to make the return required by a notice under section 22(2) and he has further not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (3) of the same section, the Income- tax Officer

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions of section

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

{"clean_text": "ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nITA No.844/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Plathotathil John\nITA

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts of the case was that, after completion of assessment for the assessment year 1949-50, the ITO issued two notices under section 22(2) and under section 34. While the notice under section 34 referred to the assessment year 1948-49, the notice under section 22(2

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 381/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148

claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions of section

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

facts were like this. The relevant assessment year was 1960-61. In that regard the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on June 1 1960, served on assessee on June 13, 1960, requiring the assessee to submit its return

VIJAYBHAI LAXMICHAND DEMLA L/H OF LATE SHRI LAXMICHAND PAHLUMAL DEMLA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1109/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 159Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta [1964] 51 ITR 823 (SC), subsequent to the discontinuance and dissolution of an unregistered firm, a notice under section 34 read with section 22(2) of the Indian Income- tax Act was 17 M.s Steecon Infrastructures addressed to a partner at the time of its dissolution calling upon

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

person liable to pay tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under section 22(2) and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice ... Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2