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:

144C of the Act, the Commissioner loses his jurisdiction to 14 exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner cannot issue a show cause notice under Section 263 exercising his revisionary powers, especially when the legislature has specifically (a) created a separate mechanism of DRP; and (b) has barred any statutory appeal against the order. Therefore

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

144C of the Act came to be passed on 31.01.2014, Annexure-H. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner is said to have filed an appeal and same is filed before first appellate authority and same is pending. 3. First respondent has issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner-assessee on 27.03.2014 Annexure

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

144C of the Act and therefore, the order passed by the tribunal deserves to be quashed. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU VS. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD.,(2020) 117 TAXMANN.COM 533 (KARNATAKA). 5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

reassessment, it is necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the claim

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

144C(1) of the Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153C though the requisition proceedings are invalid? G. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S QUANTECH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

144C of the IT Act. The undisputed facts also reveal that the respondent company pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation stood merged with the Wipro Limited, the Scheme of amalgamation was approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and by the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 10.01.2008 with effect from