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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

business income of the appellant for the assessment year in question of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. The assessed income included income from salary Rs.18,18,811/- and income from interest Rs.2,42,26,434/- of the appellant and of minor daughter Ms.G.Bramhani Rs.9,90,386/- and minor son Master G.Kireeti Rs.6,33,782/- clubbed had been done by the appellant

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

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

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and demanded tax thereon

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “The assessee company has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.26,61,99,014/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) on 18.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.25,59,90,979/-. Subsequently it is noticed that

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

business.” Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements on the subject, allowance of - 12 - deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of profit from sale of securities is justified. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Audit my please dropped.” It appears, subsequently, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 06.07.2009 by the assessing