THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

153C of the Act in the case of M/s.Chamundi Gold Hills Estate and Others, the assessment of the assessee was re-opened under Section 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

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

153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time

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

NITESH BERA (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the parties to raise

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

section 153C of the Act is not applicable and more so when the AO has provided the appellant the seized material, and consequently passed a 4 perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case?" 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a HUF, which is currently represented by Smt.Uma Bera