SRI SAIDEEPA JEWELLARY WORKS vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(AUDIT)-2

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

reassessment under sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, levying penalty and interest under sub-section (2) of Section

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 30.06.2021; it is therefore clear that in the facts of the instant case, Section 149(1)(b) was not applicable and it was only Section 149(1)(a) of the I.T.Act that was applicable and consequently, the impugned proceedings pursuant to the Notice dated 30.06.2021 issued beyond he period of limitation, which expired

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess total income of such other 38 person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A." 54. …2. Several High Courts have held that the provisions of section 153C of the Act are substantially similar/parimateria to the provisions of section 158BD of the Act and therefore, the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, apply

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

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

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39

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

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

reassessment as the case may be." Section 40 of the Act was again amended by amending Act No.54 of 2013 and the aforesaid provision was given a retrospective operation 01.04.2005. The amended provision reads as under "40. Period of limitation for assessment.- (1) An assessment under Section 38 or re- assessment under Section 39

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153A." 54. …2. Several High Courts have held that the provisions of section 153C of the Act are substantially similar/parimateria to the provisions of section 158BD of the Act and therefore, the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, apply to proceedings

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

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

reassessment. - 34 - In view of the above observations we must add one caveat. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

section 148 of the Act. Petitioner has challenged the notice issued for reassessment and order passed by first respondent holding that there is no error of jurisdiction. In order to examine the issue involved in this present petition facts relevant for the said purpose requires to be noticed which are as under. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT,2003 R/W SEC.36(1) AND 72(2) OF THE KVAT