PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment proceedings that

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment proceedings that

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A”. 6) (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) - CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., held as under: “14

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act is provided. Even if the proceedings under section 153C of the Act 25 are initiated, the procedure is contemplated under section 153A of the Act. In view of the above, period of six assessment years for the purpose of section 153A

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 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition of Rs.12,14

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

14. Sub-section (6) of Section 153 mandates that where an assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is to be made in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 consequence

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Reassessing Officer [the Prescribed Authority] has refused the ITC on both these grounds. 4. On the ITC claimed by the appellant for the supplies by the Supplying Dealer, the Prescribed Authority has recorded that in the absence of evidence to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted the tax collected from it, the appellant will not be entitled

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

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 153C, the AO has to proceed in accordance with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

14 Section 263 or Section 264 is passed by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. 3. The provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments., reassessmnents and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2A), be completed at any time- (i) xxxxxx (ii) where the assessment, reassessment

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 "(5) The advance pricing agreement entered into shall be binding— (a) on the person in whose case, and in respect of the transaction in relation to which, the agreement has been entered into; and (b) on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

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

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

14. Thereafter, the ACAR, by an order dated 31.03.2006, after taking note of the previous order passed by it on 24.08.2004 as well as the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2006 passed in STA No.36/2004, held that purchases made by the petitioner for delivery of goods to the customers are in the course of import and not exigible

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

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. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14. As discussed above, an order under Section 127(2) of the Act was issued on 20.07.2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) of Section 127 transferring the case of the assessee from the Assessing Officer – DCIT, Circle 6(1) to DCIT, Central Circle

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14. As discussed above, an order under Section 127(2) of the Act was issued on 20.07.2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) of Section 127 transferring the case of the assessee from the Assessing Officer – DCIT, Circle 6(1) to DCIT, Central Circle

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14. As discussed above, an order under Section 127(2) of the Act was issued on 20.07.2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) of Section 127 transferring the case of the assessee from the Assessing Officer – DCIT, Circle 6(1) to DCIT, Central Circle

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

14) The Board may make rules for the purposes of the efficient functioning of the Dispute Resolution Panel and expeditious disposal of the objections filed under sub-section (2) by the eligible assessee. (14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. BASHIR AHMED ABDIRRAJ AM MATTE

The appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: M.I.ARUN,B. MURALIDHARA PAI

section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 13. From the conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions