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

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

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

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

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

144 against Draft Assessment Order and DRP issued certain directions on 31.12.2003. Consequently, AO passed Final Assessment Order on 31.01.2014. 4. On 08.02.2016, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru while invoking Section 263 of Act, 1961 issued a notice in respect of Assessment Order for the year 2009-10 pursuant to the return filed by the petitioner on 23.09.2009 declaring

NATWAR AGARWAL & SONS (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

reassessment proceedings as observed by the Apex Court in the case of GKN DRIVESHAFTS (Supra). 5. The observation of the Apex Court in paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is as follows: "We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income

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

reassessments. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under Section 143 or Section 144 at any time after the expiry

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. M/S YESHODA ELECTRICALS

The appeals are dismissed

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

144 of the Act?" 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.03.2012, reopening the assessment. The notice was served on the Assessee; however, no return was filed in response. The Assessee filed objections dated 22.03.2013, contending that the reassessment

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

144 of the Act?" 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.03.2012, reopening the assessment. The notice was served on the Assessee; however, no return was filed in response. The Assessee filed objections dated 22.03.2013, contending that the reassessment

SHRI. PRASANNA V GHOTAGE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar Writ Petition No.109810/2016 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.109811/2016 (T-It)

144 read with Section 153A of the Act was completed on - 5 - 21/3/2014 assessing the total income at Rs.9,08,05,720/- and Rs.5,96,79,010/- respectively. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.1,90,01,189/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- respectively, being the difference in total income declared and net profit

SHRI. PRASANNA V GHOTAGE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar Writ Petition No.109810/2016 (T-It) A/W Writ Petition No.109811/2016 (T-It) In W.P.No.109810/2016: Between Shri Prasanna V Ghotage, "Prerana Hommes", Ranade Colony, Hindwadi, Belagavi-590006 ... Petitioner (By Sri.Shashank S.Hegde & Sri.Pramod Vaidya, Advocates) & 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Inicome Tax Office, Udupi 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Office, Opp Civil Hospital, Belgavi-590001 ... Respondents This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For The Records Of The Petitioner'S Case & After Examining The Legality & Validity Thereof Quash & Set Aside The Notice Dated 30.09.2015 Issued By Respondent No.1 Under Section 148 Of The Act To Reopen The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Enclosed & Marked As Annexure- A As One Without Jurisdiction & Consequent Order Passed By The Respondent No.2 Disposing Off The Objections Filed By The Petitioner Vide Order Dated 28.10.2016 As Annexure-J.

144 read with Section 153A of the Act was completed on - 5 - 21/3/2014 assessing the total income at Rs.9,08,05,720/- and Rs.5,96,79,010/- respectively. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.1,90,01,189/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- respectively, being the difference in total income declared and net profit

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

144 and Section 147 of the Act by an order dated 25.03.2013 and subjected the income to tax which had escaped assessment. The assessee thereupon challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 25.08.2014 affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thereupon approached the tribunal

M/S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.N.Satyanarayana W.P.No.205089/2016 (T-It) Between: M/S. Bidar Nirmithi Kendra Near Basaveshwar Circle Naubad, Bidar Represented By Its Project Manager Sri Balbheem Kamble ... Petitioner (By Sri N.B. Diwanji, Advocate & Sri Arvind Sharma, Advocate - Absent) And: 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan Sedam Road, Kalaburagi – 585 105 2. Income Tax Department Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward-I, Bidar, No.8-10-269 Basavashree Complex Stadium Road Bidar – 585 401

144 read with Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. 2. Admittedly, order under challenge is subject matter of revision before the first respondent herein. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the first and second respondents to reassess

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in part setting aside

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

144(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'] resulting in certain disallowances vide the assessment order dated 30.12.2008. A search is conducted in the premises of a third person on 20.02.2009 resulting in the proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the IT Act and culminating in the assessment order dated

HANUMANTHASA S/O KUSUSA @ KUSHALA MAHARWADE vs. SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O MAIBOOBSAB

Bench: M.G.S. KAMAL,B.VEERAPPA

Section 166 of the Motor : 4 : Vehicles Act seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.42,70,300/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident. 3. After issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented and he was placed exparte, respondent No.3 was deleted and respondents 2 and 4 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels

THE BRANCH MANAGER vs. SMT B NAGALAMBIKA

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,H.P.SANDESH

144, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI C.M.POONACHA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT B.NAGALAMBIKA W/O LATE S.SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2 2. SHIVARUDRA S. ARADHYA S/O LATE S SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. PRAMATHESHWARA S ARADHYA S/O LATE S SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 4. KUMAR C UMADEVI D/O LATE C K SHIVANNA AGED

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs. SMT.LALITHA BAI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

144, MG ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ....APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT.LALITHA BAI 2 W/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2 . RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3 . POONAM D/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL R/O C/O MOHANLAL JAI 1ST MAIN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

144, MG ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ....APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT.LALITHA BAI 2 W/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2 . RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3 . POONAM D/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL R/O C/O MOHANLAL JAI 1ST MAIN