M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

reassess was brought to the notice - 8 - of the Court, arguing that, on concluding the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act, with all the material facts available on record, the presumption u/s. 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the aforesaid notice on 13.09.2012 and declared total income of Rs.32,56,61,835/-. In the return of income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

150/- for 25 flats) should be treated as bad debt when the sale is registered in the name of the purchasers (share holders relatives) in the year 2004, due to the fact that the share holders of the assessee company and the eight purchasers who are relatives of the share holders enter into family arrangement and partition (recognised

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

150/- for 25 flats) should be treated as bad debt when the sale is registered in the name of the purchasers (share holders relatives) in the year 2004, due to the fact that the share holders of the assessee company and the eight purchasers who are relatives of the share holders enter into family arrangement and partition (recognised

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

reassess the evidence placed before the Court if material evidence is either ignored or misinterpreted or law has been misapplied to the facts of the case. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Bhoolchand and Anr. vs. M/s.Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr. (AIR 1991 SC 2053) has held 15 that the power of revision under Section

SHRI. SUMIR J. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147 are satisfied? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any reliable and cogent material in the recording u/s 148(2) of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the funds provided to the associate concerns