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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 those proceedings and reassess

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

income was to be assessed in the different assessment years to which it related. But all this had to be made in a single assessment order. The block assessment so made was independent of and in addition to the normal assessment proceedings as clarified by the 32 Explanation below Section 158BA(2). After the introduction of the group of Sections

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating material. xxx xxx xxx 33. As per the provisions of Section 153-A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the “total income

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

addition to that item or 15 items which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where ressessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. M/S JANSON INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

addition as unexplained payment to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs in the hands of the assessee would be unjustified. We, accordingly, remand this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the same with reference to the assessments framed in the case of Mr.J.Das.” 13. Thus, it was mandatory for the assessing officer to comply with the directions

SRI. M.R.ANANDARAM (HUF) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

reassessment proceedings on the facts of the case. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the legal ground of reopening which goes to the root of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Whether the Tribunal in law ought to have held that as no notice under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

addition of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee and directed the Assessing Authority to include the same in the hands of HUF and on receipt of the aforesaid order, the re-assessment proceeding was initiated by the Assessing Authority within parameters of Section 147 of the Act. It is also pointed out that the assessee is blowing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ADDITIONAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTDU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD. P.B.NO.2483 OFF BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.PARTHASARATHI SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1202/BANG/2010

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Reassessing Officer [the Prescribed Authority] has refused the ITC on both these grounds. 4. On the ITC claimed by the appellant for the supplies by the Supplying Dealer, the Prescribed Authority has recorded that in the absence of evidence to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted the tax collected from it, the appellant will not be entitled

PRL., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S I B C KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed as the

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

reassessment is altered by a different assessment in respect of searched person or in respect of third party. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and based on the said decision, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also issued circular dated December 31, 2015, vide

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Income Tax (Appeals) do not survive in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.01.2006. It was further held that various additions impugned in this appeals by the assessee and revenue need not be adjudicated and the proceedings have become infructuous in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.01.2006 in block assessment appeals. The appeals preferred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

addition of Rs.11,79,60,000/- towards unexplained loan advanced by the assessee to Sri.Peter Caddy. On further appeal by the assessee - 4 - before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], the same came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal quashing the assessment order as well as the order

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal s for the assessment years

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal s for the assessment years

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross- objections of the assessee in part dismissing the - 13 - revenue’s appeal s for the assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

additional evidences when the same was not produced before the assessing authority at the time of assessment proceedings and the same was rightly rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his orders? ITA NO. 309/2022 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the validity of the re-assessment order passed under Section