THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

4. The learned Single Judge held that, in view of Section 153(7) of the Act, the notice dated 06.11.2020 was barred by limitation and accordingly quashed the same. The learned Single Judge further directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee’s claim for refund. 5. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants–Revenue, submits

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

4 SCC 107. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extracts of clause (a) to Explanation 2 to Section 147, Section 150 and clause (a) and (b) to Explanation 2 to Section 153, which read as under: Explanation

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

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal erred in computing the period of limitation for giving effect to directions of the court in a writ petition by resorting to provisions of Section 153(1)(a) of the Act rather than considering Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. It is further submitted that all the time limits

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. The appellants are companies claiming to be in the business of infrastructure facilities, provider-operating and developing airport and related infrastructure at International Airport [hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’]. Assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with 153A of the Act, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

4 years’ mentioned in clause (ii) of sub-section (3) was amended as ‘6 years’ to be given effect from 1.4.2010. It may be noted, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub-section (3) has further undergone an amendment with effect from 1.10.2014, whereby limitation of 7 years period from the end of the financial year has been provided. Such

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

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

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very same issue came up for adjudication for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Submissions were made by the petitioner pertaining to this issue in terms of the letter dated 11.08.2009. The respondent, after considering the same, completed the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act for the Assessment Year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4. After remand, the assessing officer passed an order on 15.12.2009. The assessing officer disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub- section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case