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

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Housing was also a case where some material was unearthed during the search. Further, the High Court was clear that the addition to the income already disclosed would have to be based on some material unearthed during the search. This is clear from the observation in para 9 of the decision to the effect: "The AO is empowered to reopen

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

reopening are (a) and (b) and during fresh assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, income is found to have escaped from assessment for some other reason say, (c) and (d), then, if reasons (a) and (b) do not survive and no addition can be made for such reasons, can additions be made on the basis of reasons

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

reopening the concluded assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, what we notice is that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that further investigation was required for proceeding to commence for the assessment year 2004-05, and on such basis he opined that he had reason to believe that source of investment of purchase of property was not acceptable

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

reopened. The very same accounts which were submitted by the assessee, on the basis of which assessment had been concluded, cannot be re-appreciated by the Assessing Officer merely because a search had been conducted in the premises of the assessee. (c) In Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan

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

reopened. The very same accounts which were submitted by the assessee, on the basis of which assessment had been concluded, cannot be re-appreciated by the Assessing Officer merely because a search had been conducted in the premises of the assessee. (c) In Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan

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

reopened. The very same accounts which were submitted by the assessee, on the basis of which assessment had been concluded, cannot be re-appreciated by the Assessing Officer merely because a search had been conducted in the premises of the assessee. (c) In Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal.

assessing the income under the head ‘house property’ was upheld, the question as to whether there could have been reopening

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI. V. RAMAIAH

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

property situated at Thimmaiah Road, Bilakahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore and at Domulr 2nd stage, 3rd Phase on 19/11/2008 for a total consideration of Rs.45 crores. Further investigations by them had revealed that the said Sri. Ramaiah had not paid Capital gain tax on the above sale from the A.Y.200-10. As Sri. V Ramaiah was assessed to tax under this

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopened by issuance of notice under Section 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reopened under Section 147 and in response to the notice issued under Section 148, reply came to be filed by the assessee stating thereunder that original return filed is to be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reopening of assessment at this juncture especially when the assessing authority records that he has not considered the objections for want of supporting evidence? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the respondent to take necessary action for disposing of the objections ignoring the fact that the impugned assessment order