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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

12 TAX OFFICER', 1983 SCC ONLINE KAR 301, 'CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER', 1991 (187) ITR 43, 'PEICO ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS', 1992 SCC ONLINE CAL 368, 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX, U.P.VS. M/S MOHD. SHAKOOR MOHD. BASHIR', (1973) 4 SCC 107. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the order of transfer could not be disputed. However, the learned counsel made an attempt to support the impugned orders referring to Sections

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the order of transfer could not be disputed. However, the learned counsel made an attempt to support the impugned orders referring to Sections

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

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 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the order of transfer could not be disputed. However, the learned counsel made an attempt to support the impugned orders referring to Sections

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

2(47)(v) of the IT Act in its entirety. 8.1 Though the JDA contains a clause stating that the possession delivered shall not be construed as possession within the meaning of Section 53A of the TP Act, there are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 other clauses which confer irrevocable licence

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

12 Notification as the case may be, under those clauses is received by the Assessing Officer. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid time or period, the period of limitation referred to in sub- Sections (1), (1A), (1B), (2), , (2A) and (4) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served:" - 6 - ITA No. 50 of 2020 9. Thus, no assessment order could be passed after expiry of one year from the end of Financial Year6. In the case

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

12 notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Section 22(2) and may proceed to assess or reassess

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassess complete income then it would have stated in Section 115J that ‘income of the company as accepted by the assessing officer’. It is further submitted that Section 115J makes the income reflected in the companies books of accounts as deemed income for the purposes of assessment of tax and the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax are self contained code