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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

c) of the Act. The said conclusions are based on factual findings and we find no infirmity with the same. The AO had also rejected the assessee's contention on the ground that the shares issued in the assessee firm to the erstwhile partners was not in the same ratio. However, we note that there is no subsequent analysis

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October

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

C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

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

C. RAMAIAH REDDY RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY SECTOR-D, BASAVANAGAR BANGALORE-37. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. A SHANKAR, SR. ADV. A/W Sri. M LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27/01/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.121/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] (14B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.” 10. In the case of Padinjarekara Agencies [P.] Ltd., supra, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala while considering income escaping assessment in the course of reassessment proceedings

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

c) of the Act is prospective in nature and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the amendment to Section 124 is not procedural but substantive amendment. 12. Learned counsel for the revenue though made an endeavor to justify the impugned orders but could not succeed as the reply given by the competent authority

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

c) of the Act is prospective in nature and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the amendment to Section 124 is not procedural but substantive amendment. 12. Learned counsel for the revenue though made an endeavor to justify the impugned orders but could not succeed as the reply given by the competent authority

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

c) of the Act is prospective in nature and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the amendment to Section 124 is not procedural but substantive amendment. 12. Learned counsel for the revenue though made an endeavor to justify the impugned orders but could not succeed as the reply given by the competent authority

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru2, for the Assessment Year3 2008-2009. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’ 3 2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee belongs to the Lad group of companies and is engaged in the business of extraction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMAJA SEVA MANDALI

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

12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, without acquiring the immovable property through a proper sale deed?” 3. Today, the connected appeal in ITA.No.236/2024 wherein the same order was under challenge is dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the appeal as the monetary limit is less than Rs.2 Crores

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

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

12,000/- were not allowable under Section 40(a) of the Act on the ground that it was inadvertently allowed earlier. He argued that the AO could not have reviewed his earlier decision on that ground. 17. In Kelvinator India Ltd., it is held that post 01.04.1989, the power to reopen is much wider, but the AO has no power

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

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

12,000/- were not allowable under Section 40(a) of the Act on the ground that it was inadvertently allowed earlier. He argued that the AO could not have reviewed his earlier decision on that ground. 17. In Kelvinator India Ltd., it is held that post 01.04.1989, the power to reopen is much wider, but the AO has no power

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

c) in the hands of the individual by making several additions mainly with regard to sale of properties. 4. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In 5 the appeal also the assessee again contended that the income belongs to HUF. It was held that the land belongs to HUF , which devolved

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

1)(iii) holding that the advances to its subsidiaries were in the normal course of business, for business purposes without appreciating that as the funds from the overdraft account were utilized to make interest - free advances for acquiring lands, property advances? 6. While dealing with the said substantial questions of law, the Division Bench of this Court referred Section14A