Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : DCIT Vs Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
DCIT Vs Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan (ITAT Chennai) Notice u/s 148 After 3 Years Needs Pr.CCIT Approval – ITAT Says Sanction by Pr.CIT Invalid, Reopening Quashed Assessee ‘s case was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 26.07.2022, resulting in addition of Rs.7 Crores u/s 68. Before CIT(A), Assessee challenged the validity of the notice itself, arguing that more than 3 years had elapsed from the end of AY 2017-18 & therefore approval of the higher authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT) was mandatory u/s 151(ii). However, the notice was approved only ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Section 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence Section 54F Exemption Allowed on Sale of Redeveloped Flat: ITAT Mumbai View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031