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 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

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

disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

153C of the IT Act and the procedure of the AO in continuing the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the IT Act is erroneous. Hence, it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru on 11.05.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law ‘H’ is admitted. 6. ITA Nos.509/2014, 510/2014, 512/2014

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in part setting aside

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

disallowances vide the assessment order dated 30.12.2008. A search is conducted in the premises of a third person on 20.02.2009 resulting in the proceedings under Section 153C

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

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating