THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

1-A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding [thirty days from the date of the [order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

reassessment & recomputation under various scenarios; section 153 is substituted by Finance Act, 2016; the brief outline of this section is as under: • Sub-section (1) deals with time-limit for making assessment order under sections 143 or 144

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:

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:) 22 (Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be deemed to have

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

1) of the Act: Section 2(8) " assessment" includes reassessment Section 2(40) "regular assessment" means the assessment made under sub- section (3) of] section 143 or section 144

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated were not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Act on 25.03.2013. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’). The CIT(A), by order dated 29.03.2016, partly allowed the appeal validating the notice under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated were not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Act on 25.03.2013. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’). The CIT(A), by order dated 29.03.2016, partly allowed the appeal validating the notice under Section

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

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 2 3. M/s Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Having its Office at: Havappa Complex, Shivanagar Udgir Road, Bidar – 585 401 Represented by The Chief Branch Manager

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

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