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 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 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

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

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

27 court shall not be taken into account in computing such period for assessment or reassessment as the case may be." Section

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October

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

27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the aforesaid notice on 13.09.2012 and declared total income of Rs.32,56,61,835/-. In the return of income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

27,310/- under Rule 8D(2)(II) while making the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act without appreciating that, when the interest 3 expenses incurred cannot be directly attributed to any particular income or receipt, provision of rule 8D(2)(ii) automatically becomes applicable? (ii) Whether the tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance under Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

27,310/- under Rule 8D(2)(II) while making the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act 6 without appreciating that, when the interest 3 expenses incurred cannot be directly attributed to any particular income or receipt, provision of rule 8D(2)(ii) automatically becomes applicable? (ii) Whether the tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance under Section

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. The issue being purely one of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

27-04-2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA 2 NO.1379/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under