THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassess” to completed assessment proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153-A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

27 - power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once the order passed by the Assessing

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment to 27 the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.” 24.He further contends that the reliance of the assessee on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ securities Ltd is incorrect and the same has not dealt with the proposition canvassed above. The Delhi High Court has not considered

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other 27

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

27 (2)(j) and Section 31(1)(a) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Draw a decree accordingly.” 7. Points 1 to 6 have been considered together by the Trial Court. The main reason for allowing the eviction is that

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 made under Section 27 or to an assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 is without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. 27. As discussed in the preceding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be on a completely different footing, and therefore, would not merit consideration. However, keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal, in various decisions, had taken the view that four years period would be a reasonable period of time to initiate action, the Delhi High Court held that where

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

reassessment under Section 143 & 147/148. 27. Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment/reassessment in Section