PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the conditions for issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act being well settled, merely on the ground that no incriminating material was seized by the Department, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act cannot be held to be unjustifiable; the finding of the Tribunal, runs contrary

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities is untenable. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the loss for previous year i.e., assessment year 2005-06 has been quantified by the Assessing Officer which pre-supposes the determination

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets, seized or requisitioned, belongs to, or any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A, then, the books of account

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

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

5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in response to the notice under Section 147 of the 6 Act, the assessee appeared. However, it was fairly submitted that notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued. It is argued that non issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is a procedural irregularity

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. - 53 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset [including financial