THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

section 142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than one thousand

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GMR ENERGY LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 18.01.2010, 02.03.2010, 08.06.2010 and 02.11.2010. The details as sought by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee and an order of assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 27.12.2010, by which the interest paid was not treated as revenue expenditure and disallowance

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

142(1) of the Act was issued on 16.02.2015 by which the assessee was required to furnish various details. The assessee filed detailed reply to the notices on 25.02.2015 and 03.03.2015. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order on 19.03.2015 by which following disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer: (i) Additional disallowance made under Section

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The appellant appeared and furnished all the details. The Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act and passed an order on 17.11.2015 making one addition which was disallowance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1) dated 04.06.2010 and 12.08.2010 were issued and served on the 5 assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the statement of accounts, noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.62,49,85,438/- as sub contract charges under the head of 'personnel cost' as per profit and loss account. Thereupon the show cause notice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.REMA CONSTRUCTIONS,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowance of the said items by the Assessing Officer was not proper. The Assessing Officer should have initiated penalty proceedings under Section – 271(1)(c) for deliberately 3 furnishing inaccurate particulars and thus directed the Assessing Authority to initiate penalty proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the 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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

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

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 6. It is not in dispute that an assessment can be reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act only on fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

MPHASIS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year”. (b) in the notice dated 01.09.2017 at Annexure-K the 2nd respondent has assigned the reasons for resorting to re-opening of the assessment, relevant part of which reads as under: “ From the above discussion, is clear that assessee

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. - 53 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed