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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

36 order to find out what is the “total income” of each year and then pass the assessment order. Therefore, the Commissioner by virtue of the 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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment of income of Rs.48,73,08,092/- for the assessment year 2011-12 the assessing officer has made an assessment of business income of the appellant for the assessment year in question of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. The assessed income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or] [ Section 153- A or clause (c) of Section 158-BC]] unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

iii) The word ‘reassessment’ is used next to the term 'fresh assessment' in section 153(5), Proviso (a) to section 240 & section 244A(1A); the definition of the term ‘assessment’ as contained in section 2(8) which merely provides that assessment includes reassessment, shall not ipso facto be applicable in all situations governed by various provisions

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

iii) In ITO, Sitapur vs. M/s.Muralidhar Bhagwan Das case (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- 9. Now, let us scrutinize the expressions on which strong reliance is placed for the contrary conclusion. The words relied upon are “section limiting the time”, “any person”, “in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction”. Pointing out that before

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

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

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

iii) where reassessment is - 31 - altered by a different assessment in respect of the searched person or in respect of a third party. 13. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. BMR Energy Ltd. (ITA No.358/2018 and connected cases DD.08.01.2019), a coordinate bench of this Court has held that the judgment reported in the case of Canara Housing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess total income of such other - 47 - person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A. 47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block