PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

reopening for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 held that stock option cannot be assessed as perquisite. It was further held that the gains could be assessed only as capital

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gains had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. -: 6 :- 7. Though Mr.Ashok Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for appellant-assessee has made valiant attempt to contend that Tribunal erred in considering the cross-objection filed before Tribunal on the ground after having observed that there was no direction to the Assessing Officer and as such

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

reopening of the assessment and the consequent assessment proceedings are valid in law on the facts and circumstance of the case? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the issue of cost of the capital asset on 01.04.1981 and consequential indexed cost of acquisition to be allowed on the facts and circumstances of the case

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

reopening of the assessment and the consequent assessment proceedings are valid in law on the facts and circumstance of the case? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the issue of cost of the capital asset on 01.04.1981 and consequential indexed cost of acquisition to be allowed on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gain is computable on the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. Without prejudice whether the authorities were justified in assessing the firm after it had ceased to exist on the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the value adopted

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

reopening of assessment is not the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41199-DB ITA No. 155 of 2023 case, the Tribunal was right in not considering that the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs.8,91,96,531/- under the head Income from Long Term Capital

M/S ICKON PROJECTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

capital gains tax for A.Y.2006-07 and concluded the assessment. He also concluded protective assessment for A.Y. 2007-08. Assessee challenged both the orders before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by two different orders upheld the Assessing Officer's view. On further appeal, the ITAT by its common order dated 02.12.2021 has remitted the matter

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

capital gains, was not available. 3. The assessee controverted the said contention and had asserted that all conditions as specified in Section 47 (xiii) of the Act were duly complied with. And, appealed the re-assessment order. However, the CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's appeal. This led the assessee to file an appeal before the learned ITAT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power." 28.The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee is that on 14.10.2010 the assessee filed return of income under Section 139 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year