THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition, on the basis of such assessments; - 9 - (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or 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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on intangible assets, which was not in accordance with Section 32(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee by a communication dated 17-02.2010 stated that return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06 already filed on 31.10.2005 be treated as return in response to the notice under Section

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

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 against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

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

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 against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

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

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 against the assessment order dated 31/12/2012 before the Appellate Commissioner. 9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

143(2), issue of notice u/s 147, for completing assessment u/s 153, etc; limitation is 37 provided for acts of assessee as well ie., due date for filing of returns u/ss 139(1)/(4)/(5); in Parashuram Pottery Works Col Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 at p.10, it is stated: “At the same time, we have to bear