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 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 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 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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court again holds that mens rea is an element that is to be present in a proceeding under Section 271 of the Act. The mere fact of not accurate tax, not exact tax or erroneous tax would not lead to the proceedings under Section

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

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

1. Without prejudice, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that once the interest claimed by the appellant for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 is disallowed the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the interest in the assessment year 2004-05 being the income offered under the head income from house property

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

1)(c) of the Act. 2. For better appreciation of the questions involved, it is necessary to briefly advert to the facts of the case. 3. Assessee is a partnership firm run in the name and style M/s.SLV Housing Development Corporation. The partnership firm consists of the assessee – Mr. H.Nagaraja, his wife Smt. Bhagya Nagaraj and his father Mr. Hanumappa

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