“Section 34(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)(b)25 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1)(b) is CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. (311 ITR 253), cited in 29 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(1)(b)

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.

311 ITR 253 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenses incurred prior to business commencement but after business setup are deductible as revenue expenses, as the setting up and commencement dates of a business are not necessarily the same.

309)(Kar) (b) Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT

28 Taxmann.com 280 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure approved by the DSIR in Form 3CL alone qualifies for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The DSIR's decision on the correctness of expenditure under this section is final.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported

citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

B.K Gooyee v. CIT

62 ITR 109 · 1966 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd.

61 ITR 461 · 1966 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Reassessment action under Section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act (now Section 147(b) of the 1961 Act) requires "information" beyond a mere change of opinion on the same facts or discovery of a mistake of law; an errorless, legally correct order cannot be reopened without new information.

CIT v. Sir Mohammad Yusuf Ismail

12 ITR 8 · 1944 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment is not permissible based solely on a change of opinion on the same facts, discovery of a mistake of law, or without new information.

Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT

88 ITR 439 · 1973 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Income-tax Officer must form a belief that income has escaped assessment, record reasons for this belief, and obtain necessary sanctions before reopening a concluded assessment. Reopening based on an incorrect section of the Act or without proper justification is invalid.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)(b)

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, Section 34(1)(b) would have no application." (Underlines supplied) 14. In the case of M/s. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), one of the issues which arose

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.' (emphasis supplied) ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 45 14. In the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which Page 15 of 24 form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.' (emphasis supplied) 14. In the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), one of the issues which arose