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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37 Sub-section (2) of Section 153C states that where books of account or documents or valuable assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub- section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

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

37 - the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 153A (1)(a) of the Act. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur .v. Raj Kumar Arora [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or valuable assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and 37 that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

37(1) of the Act. 12. The Appellate Authority having remanded the question to the Assessing Officer for reexamination particularly on the aspect of expenditure incurred by the company on the employees who had accompanied the guests and delegates, the assessee having carried the matter further to the Tribunal on this question also and the Tribunal having opined in favour

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

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

37 - change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment. Doing so would have the effect of giving the assessing officer the power of review and Section 147 confers the power to re-assess and not the power to review. 10) To check

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued”. 15. Keeping these principles in mind when the facts on hand are examined it would indicate that during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10 assessee had requested the Assessing officer to reconcile the sales as per sales tax return and sales declared

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of Section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Indian 18 Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

37. It was contended that for imposing penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, mens rea is not the requirement. Therefore, once the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the aforesaid provision is satisfied, the imposition of penalty is automatic. There is no discretion left with the authorities in the matter of imposing penalty. In support of the said contention