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

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

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, for any assessment year, proceedings for which have been completed before the 1st day of July, 2012. 3

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 as Annexure-R.16 27/12/2018 Assessee referring to earlier dated 20/12/2018, seeks copy of reasons Copy of letter dated 27/12/2018 Annexure-R.17 7. The petitioner contends that though the assessing authority has stated that they

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

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 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) The provisions of sub-Section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assesee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3) of the Act. It is also a matter of record that before initiating re- assessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO had initiated proceedings under Section 154 of the Act for the same reasons and proceedings initiated under Section 154 were dropped by him after the issuance of notice under Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been 7 incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section

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

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section

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