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 :-

17. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) has been explained by the High Court of Karnataka in Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1) Bangalore (2021) 283 Taxmann 98 (Karnataka) and it was held as under : “11. In the instant case, admittedly

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance causing alleged escapement of income. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee/petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Club Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2020) 426 ITR 157 (Cal) particularly paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : “30. Considering the submission of the parties

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 of the decision in the case of WALFORT supra, it is pointed out that expenditure is a pay out and pay back is not 10 expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A of the Act. It is further submitted that condition precedent for invoking Section 14A of the Act is pay out. In the instant case, since the assessee

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

3) Whenever best judgment assessment is made, the Court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case. Assessment by the department officials The ITO, Ward-3, Kakinada rightly rejected the loss return of income filed in most of the cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

3) of Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15:59:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 127/2025 Page 4 of 10 the Act. 12. The reassessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to a notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The AO had reopened the assessment on the basis that the records of South Delhi Municipal Corporation