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

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 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

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 INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Housing Development Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, held as under “18. A perusal of Section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure which is covered by Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 in respect of searches made after 31.5.2003. These Sections, the applicability of which has been excluded

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

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

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

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

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

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

M/S SRIDEVI DAIRY FARMS (P) LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

The appeal stands disposed of sans answering the

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

house property as a pre-construction period interest allowable as deduction as per Explanation to section 24 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant cannot agitate the issue of claim of 1/5th of interest as allowable deduction in the - 4 - proceedings under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

house. In respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee filed return of income on 14.2.2000 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,000/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) came to be concluded determining the total income at Rs.5,20,000/-. A search came to be conducted in the premises

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.34/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 7/16 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

property in the manner as may be prescribed, and submit a report of the estimate to the authorised officer or the Assessing Officer, as the case may be, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such reference.]] (10) If a person legally entitled to the books of account or other documents seized under sub-section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI I MAHABALESHWARAPPA

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

HOUSE, SARJAPUR ROAD KAIKONDANAHALLI, CARMELRAM POST, BANGALORE-560005. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.155/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING TO: 2 (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal

Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Housing Development Corporation which is a partnership firm. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of the assessee on 06.01.2009 and 4 during the course of search, lot of incriminating materials were seized by the Department. The case of the assessee was centralized vide order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 16.04.2009 and a notice