M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities is untenable. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the loss for previous year i.e., assessment year 2005-06 has been quantified by the Assessing Officer which pre-supposes the determination of loss by the assessee in its return. Learned counsel placing reliance

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

loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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:

set aside or cancelled with a direction to undertake a fresh assessment/re-assessment and such a direction is accomplished; although, section 153(5) prescribes a time limit 10 of three months for giving effect to the orders passed under any of the provisions i.e., Ss.250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 of the Act by the Assessing Officer; however, an exception

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

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

setting aside the Order dated 6.1.2015 had remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer [‘AO’ for short] for consideration afresh over the petitioner’s objections and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law assigning the reasons after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a week from the date of the Order. The petitioner was directed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

set up a defence that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and hence, denied the liability to pay the compensation. The second respondent- Insurance Company also disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased. The Tribunal based on pleadings, framed the following issues: "1.Whether the petitioners prove that accident occurred

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

Reassessing Officer [the Prescribed Authority] has refused the ITC on both these grounds. 4. On the ITC claimed by the appellant for the supplies by the Supplying Dealer, the Prescribed Authority has recorded that in the absence of evidence to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted the tax collected from it, the appellant will not be entitled

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

set off of loss as claimed by the assessee for the current assessment year 2004-05 has to be allowed? 5. Learned counsels submitted that the substantial question of law as framed in ITA No.735 of 2009 being for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 would be consequential on the answering of the substantial questions of law raised in ITA No.734

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

set off of loss as claimed by the assessee for the current assessment year 2004-05 has to be allowed? 5. Learned counsels submitted that the substantial question of law as framed in ITA No.735 of 2009 being for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 would be consequential on the answering of the substantial questions of law raised in ITA No.734

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of 11 assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

loss of Rs.6,83,400/- on 28.12.1992. After considering assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), an order came to be passed on 11.11.1994 treating the assesee as the unregistered firm and accepting the return filed. The assessment - 3 - was reopened by issuing notice under Section

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH, SMC, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1364/BANG/2016 DATED 23.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in Ss.148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). S.148: Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment: (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under S.147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

reassessment (or recomputation) the income (or loss or depreciation allowance) originally assessed/determined. Rs. 73,604/- 6. Whether the case falls under cl. (a) or (b) of s. 147 147(a) 7. Brief reasons for starting proceedings Under s. 147 (indicate the items which Kindly see overleaf are believed to have escaped assessment Sd/- S. P. Chaliha. I.T.O

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

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

set aside by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 24 taxmann.com 98 (Delhi). We find that the Tribunal only dismissed the appeal on this legal issue and had not considered the matter on merits.” 18. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kabul Chawla [(2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi)], Hon’ble Delhi High

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

set aside by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 24 taxmann.com 98 (Delhi). We find that the Tribunal only dismissed the appeal on this legal issue and had not considered the matter on merits.” 18. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kabul Chawla [(2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi)], Hon’ble Delhi High