PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reopened. The block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the "total income" of the aforesaid years

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the "total income" of the aforesaid years

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassess the “total income” for the entire six years' period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to reopen

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

reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the under-assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

reopened the assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. 3.2 Upon conclusion of the reassessment proceedings

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is to be made under Section 147 of the Act, pursuant to reopening under Section 148, such

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

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

reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

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

reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

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

reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee has not raised any objection with regard to non service of notice under Section 143(2) before the assessing officer and therefore, the objection raised in appeal

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

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

reopening of the assessment? 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quashing the reassessment

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

assessment and as such, reopening of the reassessment was bad. However, the said contention came to be negatived by the Tribunal

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to Section 129 or (ii) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by a order or injunction of any court, or (iia) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

reassessment order was passed. Assessee unsuccessfully challenged the same before the CIT(A)1 and subsequently ITA No.1062/Bang/2004 before the ITAT2, Bangalore. By its order dated January 6th, 2006 the ITAT partly allowed the appeal and granted the relief sought for, on the merits of the case. So far as the question whether the assessment was reopened

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

reopening the case. Thereafter reassessment was completed for both years. CIT(A)3 confirmed the reassessment orders. The assessee challenged the orders passed by CIT(A) before ITAT4. 6. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has partly allowed the appeals. In substance, the ITAT held that issuance 1 Assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

reopening the case. Thereafter reassessment was completed for both years. CIT(A)3 confirmed the reassessment orders. The assessee challenged the orders passed by CIT(A) before ITAT4. 6. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has partly allowed the appeals. In substance, the ITAT held that issuance 1 Assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

reopened. Re-assessment was completed and certain amounts were added by the A.O.2 The CIT(A)3 has confirmed the order passed by the A.O. The ITAT has allowed assessee's appeal by the impugned order holding that no reasons were recorded for re-opening the assessment nor in the order of reassessment

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