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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

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

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 47 of 50 nature of execution for refunding the amount, it is not assessment or reassessment proceedings at all. Further, while processing a refund application, reassessment is not permitted nor conditions of exemption can be adjudicated and reassessment is permitted only under Section

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment under Section 14 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In that case, it was held that once an assessment

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14 As per Section 147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may, subject to provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess or reassess

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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 :-

14. In the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with a reassessment proceeding and in that context held that the Income Tax Officer cannot make an order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of matters which are not the subject matter of proceedings under Section

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

14 Section 263 or Section 264 is passed by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. 3. The provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments., reassessmnents and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2A), be completed at any time- (i) xxxxxx (ii) where the assessment, reassessment

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

14. 42. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the specific functions of a Customs Officer under Section 6 of the Act and the power to appoint an officer of the Customs under Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted that the functions under Section 6 of the Act are totally different from assigning the power of issuing

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

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

14. As far as one year, covered by W.P.(C) 8177/2008, goes additionally, the court notices that reassessment is not permissible, for the reasons articulated in Silverline (supra). There is no dispute that the revenue had issued a notice under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

14. Thereafter, the ACAR, by an order dated 31.03.2006, after taking note of the previous order passed by it on 24.08.2004 as well as the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2006 passed in STA No.36/2004, held that purchases made by the petitioner for delivery of goods to the customers are in the course of import and not exigible

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

14 High Court held that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order to be passed under section 147 of the Act and when such a notice is not issued and assessment made, such a defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous under- assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34(1)(b) the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

14. This aspecr \Mas gone into by a Full Bench o[ the Delhi F[gh Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd1, against q,{rich decision, revenue preferred appeal before the Suprerne Clun. In CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltcl2, Suprenre (-bun extracred Section 147 of the Act, w,hich existed in the statute book prior to Direct

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment is challenged based on HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 4 the material recovered at the time of search of a group concern? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the reasoning given in appeal of Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited (ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 dated 21.3.2022) formed the basis for decision in this appeal and hence