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

Appeals are dismissed

section 143 [and  where   a   regular   \assessment   is   made   as   is  referred to in sub­section (1) following the  date of such regular assessment]] and ending  on the date of reassessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section 143

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

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

reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section 143

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section 143

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

reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section 143

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section

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

reassessment was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 on 31.12.2007. 12 This was carried in appeal by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. In V.JAGAN MOHAN RAO supra, a three judge bench

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

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

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

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 of ₹ 1,73,77,558/-. In this petition, it is urged that the notice under Section 143

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee was quantified at Rs.95,690.00. 7. Against rhe aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 147 read with 143(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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

143(3) of the Act, the AO had sent a questionnaire vide his communication dated 04.05.2011 calling for explanation from the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted its reply on 04.07.2011 and 05.10.2011 and explained that provisions were created with regard to the technical fees for the A.Y.2003-04 to 2007-08 and had not deducted the tax during the respective

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. 16. When we apply the ratio of aforesaid cases to the facts of this case, the irresistible conclusion would be provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable in such

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

143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

143 , 144 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall

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

reassessment, pursuant to notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment year 2002-03. It is urged that the findings are erroneous that the 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