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

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 or section 254 or section 263 or section 264

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

264 of the Act. The Supreme Court in RAJESH JHAVERI supra has held that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

264 of the Act enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and 'record' is defined under Section 263 Explanation (b) to "include and shall be deemed to always to have included all records relating to any proceedings under this Act" available at the time of examination by the Commissioner

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. M/S YESHODA ELECTRICALS

The appeals are dismissed

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

264 of 2021 order under section 148 read with section 144 of the Act?" 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.03.2012, reopening the assessment. The notice was served on the Assessee; however, no return was filed in response. The Assessee filed objections dated 22.03.2013, contending that

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

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

264 of 2021 order under section 148 read with section 144 of the Act?" 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.03.2012, reopening the assessment. The notice was served on the Assessee; however, no return was filed in response. The Assessee filed objections dated 22.03.2013, contending that

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

Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal came to be allowed by order dated 29.12.2016 in setting aside the assessment order passed by the third respondent and remanding the same for reassessment

MADHUKAR G. ANGUR vs. SHREYA SANJEEV

The appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 56 of the Companies Act, the Company has no other option, but to register the shareholder as a member of the Company. Therefore, the Company has no option but to register the plaintiff as its shareholder. Thirdly, while relying on the case M/s. Howrah Trading Co. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Calcutta