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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153A. At the time of initiation of such proceedings against the 'searched person' or during the assessment proceedings against him or even after the completion of the assessment proceedings against him, the Assessing Officer of such a 'searched person', may, if he is satisfied, that any money, document etc. belongs to a person other than the searched person, then

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:

158 C.I.T. v. SMT.ANNAPOORNAMMA CHANDRASHEKAR, the act of approval is not for a mere passing of an order under Section 158BC, but an approval which takes note of the subject matter of assessment and there is application of mind before granting the approval. The Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2879 ASHOK KUMAR SAHU v. UNION

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or] [ Section 153- A or clause (c) of Section 158

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

reassessment for A.Y.98-99 vide its 10 subsequent letter and the claim for set off of loss of A.Y.98-99 was based on its return as well as original intimation which had not been rectified. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any justification for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There is merit

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. BASHIR AHMED ABDIRRAJ AM MATTE

The appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: M.I.ARUN,B. MURALIDHARA PAI

158 (Kolkata - Trib.) vide order dated 05/02/2020. Therefore, the AO will not get any benefit of extended period of 60 days as per sec. 153 of the Act. The ld.Pr.CIT is also not justified for reckoning the period for completion of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:962-DB ITA No. 100039 of 2023 assessment

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

158 ITD 0397 (KOLKATA) and ’COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PAUL NOEL RODRIGUES’, (2015) 231 TAXMAN 0811 (KARNATAKA). 8. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section 153 of 13 the Act as it existed at the relevant

LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI vs. K. DINAKAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JYOTI MULIMANI

Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, 1988. 21. In substance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that in the absence of there being any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

THE MANAGER vs. LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI

In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JYOTI MULIMANI

Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, 1988. 21. In substance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that in the absence of there being any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

THE CLAIM MANAGER vs. SMT. LATHA B J

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. 5. Based on pleadings tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners/LRs, prove that, on 02/06/2015 at 7.30 p.m., near the house of Dasharatha at Mallinathapura village, deceased S.R. Girish was succumbed to injuries as a result of accident, caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry

A NAGARAJ vs. A AMBAREESH

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act. Hence sought for dismissal of petition. 7. Based on above pleadings, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the Claimant proves that, the has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident took place near Shivananda Junction, Harekrishna Road, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

158 (SC) held as under: “9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is 72 imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that it is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars

M/S MAHENDRA APPLIANCES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: K.GOVINDARAJULU,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

section 35111 of the Act and the Rules and had all been accepted as such. 3. It appears there was a search of the premises and the examination of the accounts books of the assessee as on 2.11.2007 which had revealed that the value of the purch&ses made by the dealer were not same as per the returns