COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

reassessment to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, notice under Section 143(2) has to be issued within the prescribed limit. It was further held that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated in law. However, the revenue was granted the liberty to take appropriate curative steps

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

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

67 - 26. In the present case also, it cannot be disputed that the original assessment order dated 31.08.2009 under Section 143[3] of the Act was in consonance with the view taken in the preceding as well as succeeding year. It is clear that the audit query raised, influenced the AO to take a contrary view against the decision arrived

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

67,71,161/- to ` 89,08,86,778/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground that excess deduction under Section 10A has been claimed and hence the deduction has to be recomputed. After considering the reply given by the assessee, order of reassessment

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

reassessment, it is necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the claim

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

67 - Requirements for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C (1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other

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

67 - Requirements for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C (1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other

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

67 - Requirements for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C (1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other

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:

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:) 22 (Provided that in the circumstances referred to in clause (ii) or clause (x) of Explanation 1 to section 153, if the period of limitation available to the Transfer Pricing Officer for making an order is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be deemed to have

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

67 once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-s.(2) of s.11A. That is what Dharmendra Textile (supra) decides. 24. It must, however, be made clear that what is stated above in regard to the decision

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

67,14,829/- for AY 2016-17, under Section 10AA of the Act. In addition, the Assessee had also claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing [TP] adjustments of ₹14,82,00,000/-, which was reworked

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171 of the Act cannot be accepted. The requirement of law would postulate that the said bad debts should be written off in the books of accounts of the assessee. Admittedly, the same has been done. Therefore, on compliance of the provision of law the deduction has been granted by the CIT (Appeals). 13. Therefore, in the facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.MILLENNIA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171 of the Act cannot be accepted. The requirement of law would postulate that the said bad debts should be written off in the books of accounts of the assessee. Admittedly, the same has been done. Therefore, on compliance of the provision of law the deduction has been granted by the CIT (Appeals). 13. Therefore, in the facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

67,23,582/- claimed by the assessee has been withdrawn by its assessment order dated 28-03-2002. 9 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the fresh assessment order dated 28-03-2002, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the reassessment and withdrawal

ABB INDIA LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying the reversal

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ABB INDIA LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying the reversal

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

reassessment orders dated 29.7.2004 and particularly the assessment order dated 5.8.2004 in respect of years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are not sustainable and liable to be quashed as the petitioner was not liable to pay initial tax under Section 6-B of the Act and allowed the writ petition. It is against this order of the learned Single

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 147 of the Act 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 4 - ITA No. 67 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 309 of 2022 when there was no tangible material which could lead to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment and the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion earlier on the very issue? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA TONY

In the result, all the appeals which are filed by

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS