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 :-

reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the under-assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the under-assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act since no procedural irregularity has been committed by the assessing officer and there was escapement of income due to wrong claim made by the assessee/petitioner. Such submission is not convincing and after perusing original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act as well as recorded reason for impugned reopening

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopen and the action of reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section 153A of the IT Act (as then prevailing was) the reassessment should have been completed within two years and in the instant case the assessment

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

reopen and the action of reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section 153A of the IT Act (as then prevailing was) the reassessment should have been completed within two years and in the instant case the assessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reopen and the action of reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section 153A of the IT Act (as then prevailing was) the reassessment should have been completed within two years and in the instant case the assessment

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

reopen and the action of reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section 153A of the IT Act (as then prevailing was) the reassessment should have been completed within two years and in the instant case the assessment

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

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

reopening of the assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter. Learned counsel argued that in all the cases, the reassessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Income Tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Shri Prem Singh

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

reassessment proceeding was a clear case of change of opinion when the materials contained in the recorded reasons where already available with the department much before and also at the time of making the original assessment under section 143(3)? III) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal was clearly erroneous

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Spectra Shares AND Scripes Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

reassessment proceeding was a clear case of change of opinion when the materials contained in the recorded reasons where already available with the department much before and also at the time of making the original assessment under section 143(3)? III) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal was clearly erroneous

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

reopen the complete assessment. After permission, the assessing authority issued notice dated 5.7.2007. Thereafter the assessing authority by its order dated 1.9.2007 has passed the reassessment

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

reopening the assessment is still to be exercised by „proper officer‟. There is no distinction carved out vis-a-vis the two types of assessment or the time period when the reassessment

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

reopen the assessment, is a settled proposition of law. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.- 2013 (358) ITR 129 (SC), Rajakumar Bapna vs. UOI-(2002) 125 (16 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] Taxman 532 (Raj.), Sesa Goa vs. JCIT

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

reopen the assessment, is a settled proposition of law. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.- 2013 (358) ITR 129 (SC), Rajakumar Bapna vs. UOI-(2002) 125 (16 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] Taxman 532 (Raj.), Sesa Goa vs. JCIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

reopen the assessment, is a settled proposition of law. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.- 2013 (358) ITR 129 (SC), Rajakumar Bapna vs. UOI-(2002) 125 (16 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] Taxman 532 (Raj.), Sesa Goa vs. JCIT

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

assessments on tlte bes s o: "me're change of opinion ", u'[,ic:h ..ll l( r l)e /,'r'..' reason to reoPen. \(/e must .t .'o licc r in mind the conceptual difference between po' ci' to review and power.to reassess