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 :-

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148

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

148 of the Act was issued on the ground that excess deduction under Section 10A has been claimed and hence the deduction has to be recomputed. After considering the reply given by the assessee, order of 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 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

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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

148 and the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Recorded reasons for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act as appears at page 140 of the writ petition are as follows : “Reasons for the belief that Income has escaped assessment 2 “For the Financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Ac$, the previous under assessmenr is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duryto levy tax on the entire income fiat had escaped assessmenr during the previous par. I(lhat is set aside is, thus, only the previous underassessment and not the original assessment proceedings. An onCer

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2) of Section 12AA of the Act, are procedural in nature, whereas Sub-section (3) of Section 12AA of the Act, empowers the Commissioner to cancel the registration of the Trust or Institution, if he is satisfied that the activities of such Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not carried out in accordance with the objects

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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. This court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law:- DBITA No. 37/2009 “i) Whether the ITAT has erred in not having considered the issue of non-service of notice u/s 148 within the prescribed time frame despite this fact emerging from the assessment record? ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in law in having disallowed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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 of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity

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

148. Issue a notice, where income has escaped assessment-. (1) Before making the 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

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

2. Yet again, on 20.12.2007, the A.O. issued a second reassessment notice under Section 147 – this time not only including the amounts sought to be added earlier, but also other amounts such as prior period expenses, deferred expenditure claimed for purchase of dunnage, its treatment in the books, and the debiting of unabsorbed expenditure in the profit and loss accounts

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2. With regard to notices issued for assessment year 2015-16, in the matter of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) considered before the Honb’le Supreme Court in para 19(f) as under :- “19 f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after

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, we hold that the assessment completed by the AO u/s 147/143 (3) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is also bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly and allow the additional ground