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

119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment and the same has been interpreted by the Supreme Court

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

119 PAN AACCV 0903E …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI LAVA M, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:) 22 (Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be deemed to have

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA.” 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however, has submitted that there being no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 153D

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

119 of the Act, which if beneficial to Assessee have been held to be binding on the Authorities of the Department. The Assessee has also not been able to point out any prejudice caused to him on account of approving Authority not giving him an opportunity of hearing.” 3. Even as far as second question raised before us is concerned

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 based on audit

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA.” 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however, has submitted that there being no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 153D