BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

54 results for “depreciation”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,164Delhi630Chennai556Bangalore254Kolkata204Jaipur181Ahmedabad180Hyderabad114Pune93Indore73Raipur61Surat60Chandigarh58Visakhapatnam54Cochin46Cuttack42Karnataka39Rajkot32Lucknow32Amritsar30Guwahati22Jodhpur14SC12Agra11Dehradun11Telangana9Ranchi9Nagpur8Patna7Panaji5Calcutta5Punjab & Haryana3Kerala3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 148137Section 14778Section 143(3)77Reopening of Assessment33Section 1128Section 148A27Section 143(1)24Addition to Income23Depreciation23Section 143(2)

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 322/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and consequent issue of notice u/s 148 is invalid and it was due to change of opinion, but not having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Ld.AR further argued that if there is excess claim of depreciation

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 133A15
Reassessment13

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 323/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and consequent issue of notice u/s 148 is invalid and it was due to change of opinion, but not having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Ld.AR further argued that if there is excess claim of depreciation

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 321/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and consequent issue of notice u/s 148 is invalid and it was due to change of opinion, but not having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Ld.AR further argued that if there is excess claim of depreciation

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 324/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and consequent issue of notice u/s 148 is invalid and it was due to change of opinion, but not having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Ld.AR further argued that if there is excess claim of depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 10/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blethe Acit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Guntur. D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 47/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 10/Viz/2019) (Asst. Year : 2006-07) M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(1), D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji Guntur. House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 03/05/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur, Dated 29/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 Ita No.10 /Viz/2019 & C.O.No. 47/Viz/2019 (M/S. Lakshmi Constrcutions)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation. An amount of Rs. 5,09,752/- received by the assessee firm as 3 ITA No.10 /VIZ/2019 & C.O.No. 47/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Lakshmi Constrcutions) discussed above was not considered as income for assessing the income at Rs. 12,34,384/-.” Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has added an amount of Rs. 5,09,752/- and assessment was completed under section

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reopening of the case U/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reopening of the case U/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reopening of the case U/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reopening of the case U/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reopening of the case U/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 394/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleandhra Pradesh Capital Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Region Development Authority Vijayawada. (Formerly Vgtm Urban Development Authority), Uda Complex, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aaalv 0067 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3

reopened by issuing notice u/sec. 148 and assessment is completed on 11/03/2016 which is invalid and not correct according to law. 7. On the other hand, ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 9. The assessee is engaged

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2020[20102-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2021

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Vijayawada Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aacca2734J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

depreciation on chimney was not the subject matter of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessment was reopened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. RAVINDRA BHARATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Income Tax, Educational Society, Central Circle-1, D.No.23/812, Ravindra 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Bharathi Bhavan, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Fathekhanpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 21/Viz/2022 (आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2018-19 ) M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Educational Society, Income Tax, D.No.23/812, Ravindra Bharathi Central Circle-1, Bhavan, Fathekhanpet, Nellore, 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E ( Cross Objector) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening of the assessment for the AY 2018-19. The Ld. AR also referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Producer Co. Ltd vs. CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that “even though an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be a conclusive”. Further

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 685/VIZ/2019[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 280/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 683/VIZ/2019[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 278/VIZ/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 684/VIZ/2019[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 279/VIZ/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 682/VIZ/2019[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 5

reopening of assessment is bad in law, since, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued beyond 04 years 12 ITA Nos. 682-685 /VIZ/2019 ITA Nos. 278-280/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) without having any fresh information. Since we have allowed the appeals on merits, this issue is of academic importance, hence we consider that