THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

reopening is valid. It is not a case of change of opinion. At no point of time, on scrutiny of original proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the assessing authority, revaluation of assets was made and capital gains

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains in the Assessment Year 2007– 08. 9.2 Subsequently, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2005–06 was reopened

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Capital gain and the same has been accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. Last date for issue of notice u/s 148 is 31/03/2013. Last date for passing order u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,97,000/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Capital gain and the same has been accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. Last date for issue of notice u/s 148 is 31/03/2013. Last date for passing order u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,64,058/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains” (whether relating to short-term Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 7/16 capital assets or any other capital assets).” In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the second objection of the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reopened under Section 147 and in response to the notice issued under Section 148, reply came to be filed by the assessee stating thereunder that original return filed is to be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold

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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act in the return of income filed. According to him, this allegation 21 cannot tantamount to an allegation by the AO that assessee has failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts. 18. On the reopening of assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act in the return of income filed. According to him, this allegation 21 cannot tantamount to an allegation by the AO that assessee has failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts. 18. On the reopening of assessment

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gain” and is not a gain from the banking business. - 30 - 15. This would clearly establish that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Indeed the assessing officer objected to the audit objection in giving a reply to the same. On the other hand, the assessing officer was of the firm opinion that the assessment

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI. V. RAMAIAH

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Capital gain tax on the above sale from the A.Y.200-10. As Sri. V Ramaiah was assessed to tax under this ward, the above information was passed on this office. Sri. V. Ramaiah has stated in the statement recorded u/s 131 of IT Act that a sale proceeds of Rs.45.62 Crores has not been offered to tax. Accordingly, notice

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 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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AMCO BATTERIES LTD.,

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reopened the assessment and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.12.2011 completed the re-assessment and brought to tax the transaction relating to transfer of land at Hebbal under the Long Term Capital Gains