THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or] [ Section 153- A or clause (c) of Section 158-BC]] unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director

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

6. It cannot be disputed that by substitution of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) by the Finance Act, 2021, radical and reformative changes are made governing the procedure for reassessment proceedings. Amended sections 147 to 149 and section 151 of the IT Act prescribe the procedure governing initiation of reassessment proceedings. However, for several

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) of Section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1) of Section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

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:

6) which deals with assessment, reassessment or recomputation to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the order of superior authority or court; thus if an order of assessment is set aside in appeal with a direction that a fresh reassessment be made, the same would be covered by section 153(3); One may also note that section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, but clauses (p), (q) & (r) of the above referred observations are required to be considered. 9. As per the above referred decision

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

6. A perusal of above observations made by the Tribunal would indicate that during the course of hearing the attention of Tribunal was brought to the decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KAR) (supra). However, Tribunal did not 10 accept

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

reassessment for A.Y.98-99 vide its 10 subsequent letter and the claim for set off of loss of A.Y.98-99 was based on its return as well as original intimation which had not been rectified. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any justification for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There is merit

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

c) of Explanation (1) to Section 263 of Act 1961 cited supra. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case in respect of issue relation to, “Jurisdiction of the respondent in invoking Section 263 of Act 1961”. Consequently, if there is any shortcoming in the impugned notice, petitioner has other remedy of furnishing explanation and appraising the 17 respondent. Thus

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

c) of sub-section (1) of Section 28 applies or an order of assessment or reassessment in cases falling within clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (I-A) of this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable: * * * Provided

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could

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

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

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

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

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

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that though the assessee knew that the diminution in the value of the investment is not allowable under the Income Tax Act, still the claim was made. It is only during Section 143(3) proceedings, when explanation

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 jurisdiction of the AO to make assessment is confined to incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A or not i.e. whether any addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C’ Bench, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) as shown in the cause title. 3. The appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: In ITA Nos.322/2018 to 324/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A