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 income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. - 57 - 30. Thus, it is clear

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

57 of notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. What is set aside is, thus, only the previous under assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassessment proceedings. Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context in which the questions arose for decision in that case. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete

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

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “The assessee company has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.26,61,99,014/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) on 18.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.25,59,90,979/-. Subsequently it is noticed that

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 is made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding, direction or order of the various authorities mentioned in the proviso, the directions could be interpreted to mean the directions given by the said authority or court in the case. The finding also stand - 24 - on the same footing and therefore the finding recorded in a particular

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

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

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

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

57 of Section 108-A of the Act also cannot be accepted. As long as the petitioner who approaches the court has not approached with clean hands, he cannot be permitted to take that plea. It may be for the petitioner that it had taken intentionally that it comes under Category XIV but that itself is not a ground

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VESESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITEDD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

reassessment, deduction under Section 80-IA was disallowed. 4. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee filed the Income Tax returns on 30-11-2000 declaring the total income of Rs.1,11,76,800/- and claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,56,903/- under Section 80-IB and Rs.19,00,000/- towards the litigation expenditures. In the Profit and Loss