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

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. This appeal is preferred by the assessee, which was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 12.11.2010 on following substantial questions of law: i) Whether in law, the reopening of assessment under Section 147

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

147 of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee’s legal representative filed a letter requesting to - 5 - treat the return filed earlier as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer concluded the re-assessment proceedings and held that the activity carried on by the assessee was an adventure

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read

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

Appeal is allowed

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

147 of the Act in the name of the partnership firm which was not in existence is valid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act are applicable in respect of the assets allotted to the partners

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read

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

M/S ICKON PROJECTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is disposed of

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

147, by issue of notice under section 148 was bad in law in as much the correct section under which any proceeding could have been initiated was under section 153C of the Act and hence void ab initio under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case". 2. Shri Chandrashekar for the assessee submitted that during search

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

147 of the Act and held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act and did not have any income which escaped assessment. The return filed by the assessee was accepted. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked powers under Section 263 of the Act and concluded the same and passed an order

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

Section 147 of the Income tax Act, as the reason for reopening emanates from the books of accounts of the assessee from which the material evidence of escapement of LTCG has been discovered by the Assessing Officer with due diligence required for reopening of the assessment? 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right