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

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

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

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