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

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4. After remand, the assessing officer passed an order on 15.12.2009. The assessing officer disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income

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

The appeal is hereby dismissed

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

4) or sub- section (5), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and the assessee, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1).” 10. Section 153 of the Act prescribes the time limits for completion of assessment, reassessment or recomputation. 11. Section

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

4 SCC 107 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 393 : (1973) 89 ITR 57] one Zahur Bux who was the sole owner of the business gifted his business to his two sons Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir. Zahur Bux died thereafter. The two sons submitted their returns of income in respect of the business. The Income Tax Officer, however, rejected their returns

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

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

4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee there is no original assessment for the same Assessment Year and the an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The said intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act is not an order of assessment and therefore

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

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

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

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

4. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be dismissed. 5. It is against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the entire material on record held that the assessee had filed the return of income declaring loss. Thereafter the claim for write

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