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 before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

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 before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for the assessees/appellants and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing Counsel, Income

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for the assessees/appellants and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing Counsel, Income

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

273 of the Act.” There is no finding in categorical terms in the assessment order that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or has concealed income although the assessing officer added a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the income returned by the assessee as per the revised return. 27. In M.K.Sharma’s case (9 supra), where the assessment order contained

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

273 ITR 56?” 3. However, in subsequent year for the same assessee, this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar vs. M/s Supreme Cylinders Ltd. A-146, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi in Tax Appeal No. 67/2012 decided on 14th September, 2016, has held as under:- “4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the provisions

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

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

273/-. It is his submission that the petitioner did not hand over the possession of the rented property to the respondent by June 27, 2020. 49. It is also his submission that invocation of the Clause 8(B) by the petitioner pursuant to the termination by the respondent on June 12, 2020, was non-est, invalid and of no credence