PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced the "Post Search Block Assessment Scheme" in respect of any search under Section 132A or requisition under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

17. The contention of the Revenue that the direction of the Tribunal can be given effect to at any time, in terms of sub- clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 153, is without merit and finds no justification. Section 153(1) prescribes the limitation period for passing an order of assessment. The maximum time limit, as applicable during

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

17. Section 40 of the Act, which deals with period of limitation for assessment, prior to its amendment reads as under: "40. Period of limitation for assessment.- (1) An assessment under Section 38 or re- assessment under Section 39 of an amount of tax due for any prescribed tax period shall not be made after the following time limits

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 153C, the AO has to proceed in accordance with

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

reassessment proceedings for bringing to 17 tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings, held that mere omission to mention Section 143 (2) of the Act equally in any one of the notices so issued is held to be not fatal and would not invalidate the assessment order. In that context, it has been held that the Court is not prepared to think that there was absence of notice under Section

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

17. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Silver Line reported in (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi considering the objections raised by the revenue inasmuch as ITAT permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning non-issuance of notice under Section - 20 - 143(2) of the Act for the first

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

17. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Silver Line reported in (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi considering the objections raised by the revenue inasmuch as ITAT permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning non-issuance of notice under Section - 20 - 143(2) of the Act for the first

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

17. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Silver Line reported in (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi considering the objections raised by the revenue inasmuch as ITAT permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning non-issuance of notice under Section - 20 - 143(2) of the Act for the first

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Reassessing Officer [the Prescribed Authority] has refused the ITC on both these grounds. 4. On the ITC claimed by the appellant for the supplies by the Supplying Dealer, the Prescribed Authority has recorded that in the absence of evidence to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted the tax collected from it, the appellant will not be entitled

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassessment or recomputation has to be made on the assessee or any person in consequence, or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Section 250, 254, 260,262, 263 and 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, for which

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

The appeal is hereby dismissed

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

17. After hearing both the sides and pursuing the entire material on record and examining the order of the lower authorities, we do not find any substance on the order of the ld.Pr.CIT that the AO passed order in a hurry without waiting for the DVO report. The DVO submitted report on 25/04/2018 u/s 142A of the Act after

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, 2009. - 17

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MESSERS THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served:" - 6 - ITA No. 50 of 2020 9. Thus, no assessment order could be passed after expiry of one year from the end of Financial Year6. In the case

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

reassessment order was passed. Assessee unsuccessfully challenged the same before the CIT(A)1 and subsequently ITA No.1062/Bang/2004 before the ITAT2, Bangalore. By its order dated January 6th, 2006 the ITAT partly allowed the appeal and granted the relief sought for, on the merits of the case. So far as the question whether the assessment was reopened based on audit

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] (14B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency