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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12. Once it is held that the assessment finalized on 29.12.2000 has attained finality, then the deduction

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

reassessment proceedings for bringing to 17 tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment order itself as being without jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating on the merits and remanding the matter to the Assessing officer for computation of deduction

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended that this explanation was accepted by the AO. However, in the subsequent Assessment Order under Section 147 dated 19.12.2013, the AO has recorded that the amounts of Rs.52,767,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- were not allowable under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended that this explanation was accepted by the AO. However, in the subsequent Assessment Order under Section 147 dated 19.12.2013, the AO has recorded that the amounts of Rs.52,767,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- were not allowable under Section

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

deduction under said section and further this amount being alleged as deemed income for the purposes of being part of business of the undertaking is clearly not allowable as per the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Act and this Section defines profit and gains of the undertaking and thus is not eligible for computation under Section 10AA

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act when the project was approved with a sanctioned built up area and the assessee has eventually constructed the area far in excess of what was approved and prayed for allowing of this appeal. 5 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that this Court

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

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

deduction. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the tribunal has misinterpreted the statutory 9 provisions. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions ‘KESHAVJI RAVJI & CO. V. CIT’, (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC), CIRCULAR NO.762 DATED 18.02.1998, ‘BUDGET SPEECH 2000’, 242 ITR (ST.) 1, ‘MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act when the project was approved with a sanctioned built up area and the assessee has eventually constructed the area far in excess of what was approved and prayed for allowing of this appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that this Court in 'CIT Vs. BRIGADE

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

deduction claimed under Section 10B of the IT Act has noticed that the said aspect is covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., v. ACIT7. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has decided the matter in accordance with a judgment of this Court, the Revenue has not demonstrated

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

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

reassessment order on 31.01.2014 in consonance with the audit objections. The CIT (A)4 and the ITAT have confirmed the view taken by the A.O. 4. Shri Suryanarayana further submitted that after accepting assessees’s objections to the audit query, the A.O. had written to the Director of Audit to withdraw the audit query and to treat the matter

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

deducted is less than Rs.1 Lakh and if it is more than Rs.1 Lakh the period of limitation would be six years. The Tribunal accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the period of limitation in the aforesaid case and where the limitation of the proceeding is after six years from the end of relevant Assessment years, the said proceedings

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Deduction under Section 80I of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,17,18,570/- was disallowed. Similarly, the provision for leave encashment as well as claim for bonus to the tune of Rs.4,36,546/- as well as Rs.19,75,555/- respectively was disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals