Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exemptions v...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exemptions v. Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Charitable Trust

High Court 31 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exemptions v. Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Charitable Trust
Date of order
31 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exemptions v. Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Charitable Trust, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTIONS) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel versus MAI KAMLIWALI JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST... Respondent Through:None CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R% 31.07.2017 C.M. No. 26994/2017 (delay) 1. The delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA No. 583/2017 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 3[rd] January, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4762/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08. 3. The fact of the matter is that the reopening of the assessment of the Assessee for the AY in question was sought to be made under Section 148 ITA No. 583/2017 Page 1 of 2. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) beyond the period of four years after the end of the AY in question. The assessment was originally completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. Consequently, the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act was attracted. 4. A perusal of the reasons for reopening show that the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) merely re-examined the assessment record and came to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment. The concurrent findings of both the Commissioner of Income Tax [‘CIT(A)’] and the ITAT are that reopening was not based on any fresh tangible material. 5. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. JULY 31, 2017 rd PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. ITA No. 583/2017
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan