THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

assessment proceedings, it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie material, on the basis of which, the department could reopen the case? 3) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain

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 :-

disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopening of assessment under Section 14g of the Act when rhe original assessment was completed under Secrion 1a-l(l) ol the Act. 5. Appcllant befbre us rs a pannership firm and is an assessec rurcle r rhe Act. Appellant is engaged in the business of rice irrclrrstries. For rhe assessmen t year 199g-99, appellant had filed rcrrrrl

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

reopened, the AO issued notice with regard to the deduction of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

reopened by the Assessing Officer and he came to the conclusion that the taxable income of the assessee had to be determined in accordance with the Act and not on the basis of the Guidance Note, which only provided guidelines for preparation of financial statements for the purpose of accounting. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reopened as it amounts to change of opinion. It was further - 20 - observed by the CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer has also disallowed

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

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

disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. And balance to the land owners direclty. The AO has considered direct

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reopening of the proceedings was warranted in the circumstances of the case. The assessee, a statutory Central Government corporation, filed its return declaring loss of ₹2,65,77,24,891/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1). It was later selected for ITA 575/2012 Page 2 scrutiny, and notice was served upon the assessee on 17.10.2003 under Section

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopened, whereafter assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 5. Insofar the first issue is concerned, assessing officer found that appellant had written off an amount of Rs.1,81,342.00 tou,ards public issue expenses which was debited to its profit and loss account. After making necessary disallowance

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed the claim on the ground that as per the lease agreement these maintenance charges were to be borne by the tenants. The CIT(A), however, allowed this claim which view of the CIT(A) was affirmed by the Tribunal as well. 2. In so far as the rentals are concerned, the assessee kept on receiving the interim rent

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reopened the assessment for those two years. The income from the Kohinoor Mills was thereafter included in the income of the assessee for the first two years as well as in the assessments relating to the remaining two years. The order of the Income Tax Officer in this respect was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed an amount of Rs.11,71,893.00 shown by the appellant as receipts from trade creditors. Consequently taxable income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.15,86,408.00. 6. Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’). By the appellate order dated 06.08.2004, CIT(A) upheld the order

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

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 8. However, we find from the order dated 21.03.2022 that instead of adjudicating on the grounds raised by the assessees before the Tribunal, Tribunal had remanded the appeals to the file of the assessing officer. In paragraph 46 of the common order, Tribunal has held that assessing officer

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 8. However, we find from the order dated 21.03.2022 that instead of adjudicating on the grounds raised by the assessees before the Tribunal, Tribunal had remanded the appeals to the file of the assessing officer. In paragraph 46 of the common order, Tribunal has held that assessing officer