COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act i.e., Rs.41,04,239/-. It would be necessary to notice the observations made by the Assessing officer for levying penalty, which read thus:- “The assessee company had filed its original return of income on 31.10.2002. While filing this return, the assessee company was aware that the return filed for asst.year

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: “271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee by the CIT(A). It was open to the Assessee to have taken a stand that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra), capital gain in the case of transfer of capital assets under Joint Development

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMAJA SEVA MANDALI

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

Section 271(1)(c) of 1961 Act is in question. When we have dismissed the appeal challenging the remand of assessment for fresh consideration, the penalty proceedings arising out of the same would not be maintainable. 5. In view of the remand order and in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed against the remand