WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

section (254, 263,264 orders) Post 01.04.2019, If the order is received after 01.04.2019, then in such cases the time limit has been increased to 12 months 153(4) Notwithstandi ng sub-sec, (1), (2) & (3), where a reference has been made to Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment

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

reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has 12

M/S B L KASHYAP & SONS LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section [2] of section 22 the previous under assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34[1][b] the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction

M/S JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

reassessment under Section 21(2) before the addition of the said 12 proviso had expired and as such while reversing

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

2) by the eligible assessee. (14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

section 45(2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

12. In the above decisions Ben Gorim Nilgiri Plantations Co. and Mohammed Serajuddin cases are related to the interpretation of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution prior to amendment and after amendment to the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) w.e.f. 01.11.1956 and prior to insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the CST Act respectively. J.V.Gokal

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings, held that mere omission to mention Section 143 (2) of the Act equally in any one of the notices so issued is held to be not fatal and would not invalidate the assessment order. In that context, it has been held that the Court is not prepared to think that there was absence of notice under Section

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

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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under Section 153-A of, the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153-A bears the heading “Assessment in case of search or requisition”. It is well settled as held

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

12. In view of the request made by the learned Counsel for the appellant company, in our opinion, we need not have to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling in case No.AR.CLR.CR.25/2004-05 dated 24.08.2004. Accordingly the following: ORDER I. Without going into the merits

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 12