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

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 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

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

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

reassessment and order passed by first respondent holding that there is no error of jurisdiction. In order to examine the issue involved in this present petition facts relevant for the said purpose requires to be noticed which are as under. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of computer hardware and related products. For the assessment year

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

2. CITI Bank-Tech 521656018 1100,00,00,000 Total 3700,00,00,000 8. In view of the above stated reasons, I am of the opinion that for purpose of protecting the interest of revenue it is necessary to provisionally attach the fixed deposits tot he extent of Rs. 3,700 crores held by the assessee as mentioned