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:

reassessment in terms of Section 153(2); it would simply mean that the orders of the higher forum are to be applied & followed by the assessing officer; . it may be borne in mind that longer time limits are provided in Section 153(3) & second proviso to Section 153(5) because it may entail doing the entire process once over

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 of any person other than the assessee after the expiry of the period of - 33 - limitation specified in Section 34 in consequence of or to give effect to a finding or direction given in an appeal, revision or reference arising out of the proceeding in relation to the assessee violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of 13 the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (i) the amount of any premium paid in respect of issuance against risk of damage or destruction of stocks or stores used for the purposes of the business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of 13 the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (i) the amount of any premium paid in respect of issuance against risk of damage or destruction of stocks or stores used for the purposes of the business

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

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing Officer and/or

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

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing Officer and/or

THE COMMISIONER 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

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing Officer and/or

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

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

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 Taxman 523 (Raj)] and also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom)] which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no - 45 - additions in respect

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

vii) Learned ASG would reiterate the various contentions urged in the written submissions and contend that in the light of the specific contention of the respondents that the TPO and Investigation Wing have found that the royalty paid by the petitioner was only a mode adopted by it to divert profits outside India, setting aside the impugned order would have