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

section 148 issued is bad in law and not in accordance with law and consequently the entire proceedings are unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstance of the case. 38. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that no capital gains

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 by issue of notice under Section

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

148 of the Act on 17.02.2012. Subsequently, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act came to be issued to assessee on 16.03.2012 and 20.09.2012 respectively. On the basis of the reply received, assessment order came to be passed on 19.03.2013 (Annexure-B). 4. Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal came to be filed before Commissioner

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 148 of the Act purporting to reopen the assessment for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 since, the stock option provided for is perquisite and is required to be taxed as part of salary. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the difference which was offered by way of capital gains

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

148 of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in law in annulling the reassessment made under Section 147 especially when the provisions of Section 292B of the Act introduced w.e.f. 01.10.1975, would govern that such reassessment and makes it valid in law when the assessment made was in substance

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 by issue of notice under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

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 in the nature of trade and therefore income from sale of land has to be assessed as the business income and not as capital gains

M/S ICKON PROJECTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is disposed of

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act holding that the sale was complete and asssessee was liable for capital gains

MR. DEBARSHI SENGUPTA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

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

148 of 2024 same was sold in the year 2011. The assessee claimed capital gain under Section 54 of the Act. The claim

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

148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment dated 15.12.2010 under Section 143(3) read with Section 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

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SMT T N SHOBHA REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 26.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT V. SOUMINI REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY(HUF)

In the result, we do not find any merit in

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether