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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1) (a) or under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1) (a) or under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1) (a) or under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and 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

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

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

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous under- assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34(1)(b) the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), C.R.BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1634-1639/BANG/2012, - 2 - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), C.R.BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1634-1639/BANG/2012, - 2 - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

39 YEARS) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), C.R.BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1634-1639/BANG/2012, - 2 - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

reassessment orders. The assessee challenged the orders passed by CIT(A) before ITAT4. 6. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has partly allowed the appeals. In substance, the ITAT held that issuance 1 Assessment Year 2 Assessing Officer 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 4 - ITA No.298/2018 C/W ITA No.299/2018 of second notice under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

reassessment orders. The assessee challenged the orders passed by CIT(A) before ITAT4. 6. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has partly allowed the appeals. In substance, the ITAT held that issuance 1 Assessment Year 2 Assessing Officer 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 4 - ITA No.298/2018 C/W ITA No.299/2018 of second notice under

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

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

1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20/07/2016 PASSED IN ITA No.390/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE