Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment is confined to matters which are relevant only in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 148 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation @ 25% was claimed and the same was also allowed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessments for the three years were reopened

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation @ 25% was claimed and the same was also allowed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessments for the three years were reopened

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk Line Pvt Ltd

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reopened by the Assessing Officer more particularly, when earlier appeal of the revenue was already dismissed and the Assessing Officer was giving effect to the order of the CIT (Appeals) read with the order of the Tribunal in the - 7 - earlier proceedings. He therefore, submitted that as such, the decision of this Court in case of Yokogova (supra), cannot

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reopened. However, these appeals are concerning the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 only. Accordingly, the assessments were completed by Annexure A orders where, rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and relying on comparable cases, the Assessing Officer estimated the gross profit at 40% of the gross receipts and estimated the net profit

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward