“Section 153(6)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 153Section 153(6)(i)7 judgments

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2088/BANG/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

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

since attained finality, reference to the Board Circular is of no consequence. 3.4 Even as pointed out by Shri Suresh, albeit w.r.t. section 153(6)(i) r/w Expl. 2, instead of s. 153 (3)(ii) r/w Explanation 3 thereto, i.e., as it stood prior to its substitution by Finance

SMT. MAYA MOHAN DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD-26(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the above direction

ITA 1257/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kand, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Maya Mohan Desai Ito Ward-26(2)(6) 604, Marve Queen-2, Mumbai -400 051 Upper Kharodi, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai – 400 095

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)

limitation for reopening the case of Shri Ninad Desai is generally barred, the Bench was of the view to invoke the provisions of section 153(6)(i) read with Explanation 2(b) to section 153 of the Act which provides for assessment or reassessment of any person in consequence

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

same plea, after putting these persons to notice, in terms of the provisions of Section 153 in terms of the provisions of Section 153(6)(i) read with (6)(i) read with Explanation 2 (b) to Section 153 Explanation 2 (b) to Section 153- which is materially the same which

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)