M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined as per the amendment to Section 115JB. 5 7. For the subsequent two assessment years, the assessee being fully aware of the provisions of this Section and having filed returns, they had been assessed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

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

234B and 234C of the Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstance of the case." 3. The brief facts are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005–06. In the said return, the assessee did not disclose the capital gains arising from the transfer of an asset pursuant

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: - (i) That the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is manifestly arbitrary and reflects pre- meditated conclusion whilst provisionally attaching the property of the petitioner without recording any opinion