THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

reassessment made under Section147 of the Act on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would invalidate the assessment, which is not a prerequisite as per scheme of the 3 provisions of Section 147 and 148

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 148 was issued and reassessment order was passed. Assessee unsuccessfully challenged the same before the CIT(A)1 and subsequently

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous under- assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34(1)(b) the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction

SHRI G VENKATESH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

section 148 of the Act, is itself bad in law in as much as the notice is very vague as the notice is very vague as the notice does not specify whether to ‘assess’ or ‘reassess

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 148 of the IT Act. The assessee filed its return and sought for reasons recorded in the file for issuing the notice. By his communication dated 16.04.2013, the AO conveyed the reasons recorded for reopening the case. Thereafter reassessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 148 of the IT Act. The assessee filed its return and sought for reasons recorded in the file for issuing the notice. By his communication dated 16.04.2013, the AO conveyed the reasons recorded for reopening the case. Thereafter reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

reassessment, or recomputation is to be made under Section 147 of the Act, pursuant to reopening under Section 148, such

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case

SRI. M.R.ANANDARAM (HUF) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

section 148 does not exist and consequently ought to have also quashed the reassessment proceedings on the facts of the case

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment is under Section 148 of the Act, but such jurisdiction is subject to further compliance as being stipulated in the statute

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 148 of the Act. The assessee submitted it’s reply on 02.04.2013 but did not file it’s returns. The A.O. has passed reassessment

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely differing footing and, therefore