CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

148 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 vide two separate orders dt.31.3.1989, and for the assessment year 1984-85, he completed assessment on 27-3-1987 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer later passed orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.50,000, Rs.62,000 and Rs.70

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 :-

1) of the Act, which cannot be treated to be an order in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra). Therefore, the question of reassessment of the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer does not arise. In the proceeding under section 148

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

section 11 to Section 28. 91. It is stated that the said SCN was initially adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who by an order dated 3rd October 2012 sustained the demand raised against the Petitioner. 92. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order was allowed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment- 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

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

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

reassess such income. 10. In the instant case, the Tribunal, while accepting the plea of the assessee that merely on change of opinion, the concluded assessment was being reopened, noticed that the Assessing Officer had already gone into specific issues arising under Section 10A of the Act. It can be noticed that from the reasons recorded for issue of notice

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 15th June, 2022 Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Asst. S.G. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section

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, 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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1) of the Act determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened under Section 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 under Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment

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, do not merit consideration for the purpose of this case. 19. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed under Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that

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 Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

148 to 153, assess or re-assess any income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which has come to his notice subsequently. The proviso to Section 147 lays down that where an assessment u/s 143(3) has been made, no action shall

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause