PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

250 or section 254 is received by the 4 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 4 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. (3) The provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments

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

The appeal is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment or recomputation. 11. Section 153(3) of the Act reads as under: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2), an order of fresh assessment or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be, in pursuance of an order under section 250

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

reassessment of any person other than the assessee beyond the period of limitation specified in section 34, it violates the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and is invalid: but the proviso was valid to the extent of its operation against the assessees who are parties to the proceedings. This judgment was rendered on September 16, 1964. The next

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

250/- and Rs.250/- respectively, that is an aggregate sum of Rs.5,95,923/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), inter alia, contending that it is a registered partnership firm and has constructed the buildings which has been let out to various persons and the rent received from the building is apportioned in terms

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

250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAPTHAGIRI ENTERPRISES

The appeal is allowed and the

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

250/-. Addition was made under Section 40A(3). While completing the assessment for the year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received enhanced price for rectified spirit supplied by it to various arrack bottling units on behalf of the Government of Karnataka. The same was shown as outstanding liability in the balance sheet filed along with

BIDAR NIRMITI KENDRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.N.Satyanarayana W.P.Nos.201260/2018 & 201288/2018 & 201300/2018 (T-It) Between: Bidar Nirmiti Kendra Near Basaveshwara Circle, Naubad Bidar – 585 403 Represented By Its Project Manager Mr. Syed Zafar Ali ... Petitioner (By Ms. Lakshmi Menon, Advocate For Sri Mr. C.K. Nandakumar, Advocate) And: 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Kalaburgi – 585 101 2. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Gulbarga – 585 101 3. Income Tax Officer Ward –1, Bidar – 584 101 4. Axis Bank Limited Bidar Branch – 584 101 Represented By Its Manager ... Respondents R

reassessment. The said remanded matter was taken up for assessment by the third respondent and separate order came to be 5 passed by him on 28.12.2017. The same was subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 248 of the Act, which came to be decided by order dated 19.03.2018 passed under Section 250

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17,03,731/- as income representing cessation of liabilities towards creditors. In the 10 course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letter in respect of the creditor M/s. Sri.Gururaghavendra Cotton Ginning Factory, Bellary against whom Rs.1,00,000/- credit balance was outstanding. The assessee was requested

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

250 (KARNATAKA). Interpreting the deeming provisions it has been held as under: “48. As the opening words of Explanation 1 makes it clear where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false

SRI SURESH KUMAR KOTHARI (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B.S. Patil

section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent has failed to assign reasons for reopening the assessment, despite which petitioner participated in the reassessment proceedings which was concluded resulting in addition of a sum of Rs.13,72,250

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

250/- and Rs.2,94,58,337/- respectively. Aforesaid C.Rajkumar who worked as real estate agent filed return of income in individual capacity and not as HUF. During the course of the search on 26.08.2008, it was stated by him that he had not declared / disclosed income from real estate transaction and the same would be declared in the return

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. M/S JANSON INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

250/- and bogus expenditure on lands at Gooliyanandagunda of Rs.92,00,200/-, modifying the unexplained expenditure with respect to - 7 - Janson Mall at Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e., giving relief to the extent of Rs.18,00,000/-. 8. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came