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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

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

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

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

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 :-

148 on 10/12/2001. Order under section 143(3) read with section 147 was passed on 20/11/2002. The Assessing Officer himself has accepted lease rent income as business income. Thus, the Assessing Officer has accepted one part of the revised return by accepting the rental income as business income; but he has refused allow business expenditure on technical ground that reassessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that

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

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

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that

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

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that in the original assessment proceedings

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/S Foods Fats and Fertilisers Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 148(1) of the Act on the assessee, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed. 9. He has also

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Shri. Isanaka Mastan Reddy

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

reassessment proceedings made by the revenue and observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Steel (supra) the orders issued under Section 148

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

Section 139 for any assessment year to the Assessing Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for that year, or 148. Issue a notice, where income has escaped assessment-. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

reassessment proceedings by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 147 was bade in law. In that view of the matter

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

148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter ; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 , 144 shall, so far as may be, apply

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section 148

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

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

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely differing footing and, therefore

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

reassessment proceedings. 5. Furthermore the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT considered elaborately on the merits of the addition and held that the effort of the assessing officer ITA 575/2012 Page 4 to bring such amounts to tax was not justified. The ITAT pertinently noticed as under : “The formation of such belief exhibiting the escapement of income or the reasons should

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

Bench: The Learned

reassessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to a notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The AO had reopened