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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than one thousand rupees

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment Section 2(40) "regular assessment" means the assessment made under sub- section (3) of] section 143 or section 144. 234A (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3. Aravali Engineers [P.] Ltd., V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax [(2011) 11 taxmann.com 291 (Punjab & Haryana)] 4. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda V/s. Panchvati Motors [P.] Ltd., [(2011) 12 taxmann.com 111 (Punjab & Haryana)] 5. Learned counsel Sri.Chythanya.K.K., appearing for the respondent – assessee would submit that reply dated 08.10.2013 was submitted by the assessee pursuant to the notice issued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3) has been made, no action shall be taken under Section 147 of the Act, after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, that 4 years period would not come in the way of such assessment or - 13 - reassessment, if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of their failure

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or] [ Section 153- A or clause (c) of Section 158-BC]] unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3. A search under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of M/s. Bellary Steel and Alloys Limited, at Bellary (‘BSAL’ for short). During the said search, it was found that the M.S.Rolls given on lease by the assessee-Company to the BSAL were not in existence. On verification of the records of BSAL, it was found

SHRI V SELVARAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

reassessment, to make a reference to the Valuation Officer, if he is not satisfied with the accounts provided by an assesssee. As per Explanation to Section 142A, the 'Valuation Officer' has the same meaning as defined in clause (r) of Section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Wealth Tax Act'). 23. In the present case

SRI ARUN G TOPPANNAVAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed since no

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, In Ita Nos.71 & 72/Panj/2006 Which Were Dismissed On 4.7.2006. Challenging The Tribunal’S Order, The Assessee Preferred Miscellaneous Applications In M.A.Nos.34 & 35/Panj/2006 Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, Which Were Dismissed On 4.8.2006. 3. Challenging The Concurrent Findings Of Respondents, The Present Appeal Is Filed. 4. The Appellant Is A Civil Contractor. For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 By Declaring Income Of Rs.1,37,814/- Filed Return On 28.3.2002 Under Section 139(5) Of The Income Tax Act. According To The Appellant

Section 143(3) was 31.3.2004. Much later on 6.2.2004 notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued for reassessment when the original return of income was filed on 28.3.2002 remained undisputed. Notice was served upon the appellant u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 17.2.2004. A notice u/s 143(2) and 142

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3 :- Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 17.02.2012. Subsequently, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act came to be issued to assessee on 16.03.2012 and 20.09.2012 respectively. On the basis of the reply received, assessment order came to be passed on 19.03.2013 (Annexure-B). 4. Being aggrieved by said

SHRI G VENKATESH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

reassess’ the income of the Appellant and consequently the order passed under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act on an invalid notice is bad in law and void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that any assessment order sans considering the objections is void ab initio

SMT. PRAMEELA KRISHNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

142(1) were issued calling for certain information. In response, Sri.T.N.Ramadas, ITP appeared on behalf of the assessee. He assessed the total income at Rs.1,35,08,339/-. 6 3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded