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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5) The advance pricing agreement entered into shall be binding— (a) on the person in whose case, and in respect of the transaction in relation to which, the agreement has been entered into; and (b) on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him, in respect of the said person and the said transaction

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined as per the amendment to Section 115JB. 5 7. For the subsequent two assessment years, the assessee being fully aware of the provisions of this Section and having filed returns, they had been assessed

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation has to be taken as per books of accounts and not as per balance sheet. It is further submitted that tribunal ought to have reduced the lower of the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per books of account relating to non 10A unit while

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

10A, 10B 11 or 12 of the Act? 6 3. On account of similarity of the issues involved in the substantial questions of law, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No.97/2010 are being referred to. 4. The assessee filed a return of income on 28.11.2000 declaring

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

10A, even that nexus is manifest. The Assessing 14 Authority has not properly applied his mind towards the statutory provisions and has not taken into consideration that the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) which was also reopened once and adjustment was made. It is for the second time, he was raising all these objections. When admittedly the second

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

10A, even that nexus is manifest. The Assessing 14 Authority has not properly applied his mind towards the statutory provisions and has not taken into consideration that the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) which was also reopened once and adjustment was made. It is for the second time, he was raising all these objections. When admittedly the second

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SASKEN

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment proceedings and had filed return in response to 147 notice and contested the proceedings actively and decisions relied upon by Tribunal have not been reached finality, further without taking note of section 292BB of the Act?” 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned the findings as under