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

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section- 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 6

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that provisions to Section 153 of the Act have been amended with effect from 01.06.2016. However, the pre amended Section would apply to the fact situation of the case. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 153(2A) would apply if an order passed under Section 254 or 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

6. Such a finding or direction should obviously be necessary for the disposal of the earliest proceedings. 7. In the decision cited above, the Supreme Court had to consider the meaning of the word “person” appearing in the proviso. Their Lordships say: “The words ‘any person’, it is said, conclude the matter in favour of the department. The expression

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 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

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

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

6. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. The Explanation to Section 143 of the Act prior to 01.06.1999 reads as under: "Explanation - An intimation sent to the assessee under sub-Section (1) or sub- Section (1B) shall be deemed to be an order for the purposes of Sections

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 vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that though the assessee knew that the diminution in the value of the investment is not allowable under the Income Tax Act, still the claim was made. It is only during Section 143(3) proceedings, when explanation

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/- to the income of the petitioner holding that certain shares were purchased by the petitioner

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

6 - partly allowed the appeal by canceling the levy of surcharge but upheld the determination of undisclosed income assessed by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal before the Tribunal, both the assessee as well as the Department challenged the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee dismissing the appeal