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:

reassess under section 21 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

NATWAR AGARWAL & SONS (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

reassessment order, assessing authority passes order under Section 154 of the Act. Copy of order passed under section 154 of the Act is produced

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

154 of the Act, which provides for rectification of mistake, the Appellate Commissioner corrected its order and held that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer was within limitation. However, a finding was also recorded that the amount paid by the assessee to the Recipient was not towards rent and hence the provisions of Section

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

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “The assessee company has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.26,61,99,014/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) on 18.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.25,59,90,979/-. Subsequently it is noticed that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

154 of the Act. 17 12. From the perusal of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act, as it stood up to 31.03.1999, it is evident that to confer jurisdiction under Section 147(a) of the Act, twin conditions were required to be satisfied namely, (1) the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

154 were dropped by him after the issuance of notice under Section 148 and were thus pending on the date of initiation of the re-assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, the Tribunal while setting aside the reassessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

MR.K. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY vs. MR. SHEENA NAIK

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

Bench: N.K.PATIL,PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

154 of the Act on 27.10.1998. The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereupon notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

154, thereby final position is that the loss returned is assessed at ‘nil’. The claim of Rs.4,40,00,000-00 was also withdrawn by the assessee even before any meaningful query or investigation was carried out by the department. Being a company, it was mandatory that the account of the assessee is prepared in 6 line with the Accounting

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order relating to the relevant tax periods / week / month of the year.” (a) Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 define arrears of tax for the purpose of the Scheme with regard to; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) on the one hand and also for the purpose

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs. SATHISHKUMAR

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity) against the appellant and respondents No.4 to 6 seeking for compensation of Rs.25 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. on account of death of G.Gopal in a road traffic accident. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 –claimants are minor